argue out vs argue

valdemar

Senior Member
Español mexicano
Hi!. I have this sentence:

We have to argue/argue out the case for lower taxes

What is the difference between argue and argue out?

Thank you in advance.

< Edited to restore original question. >
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Glasguensis

    Signal Modulation
    English - Scotland
    We have to argue the case for lower taxes - "we" already agree, and are going to persuade other people of our case
    We have to argue out the case for lower taxes - "we" need to debate what the case is - we haven't yet agreed on it
     

    valdemar

    Senior Member
    Español mexicano
    << Edit moved from first post. >>

    After reading some contexts on the internet this is my try at understanding the difference. I really appreciate your comments:

    "We have to argue the case for lower taxes": we need to give reasons for lower taxes

    "We have to argue out the case for lower taxes": we need to discuss different ideas and reasons between us and get a conclusion for lower taxes.

    << Mod's note: The above was moved from the first post to preserve the sequence. It was added after post #2 was submitted. >>
    ==========================



    Thank you Glasguensis. Your answer is really helpful and I can completely understand the meaning of "argue out" . My problem now is the use of the verb "argue" by itself. Please could you tell me if this sentence is fine and which of the interpretations is the right one:

    - This is the last chance I have to argue my theorem

    Interpretation:

    1) This is my last chance to write a convincing and detailed proof to show my theorem to be true. (to write it in a paper)

    2) Today is my last chance to present a convincing and detailed proof to show my theorem to be true. (to present it in a convention)
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Glasguensis

    Signal Modulation
    English - Scotland
    It can mean either. The word does not contain any information on how you will put your case (in writing or orally), merely that you will try to convince someone of your case.
     

    valdemar

    Senior Member
    Español mexicano
    Thank you guys.


    The word does not contain any information on how you will put your case

    My confusion is basically because in my language the similar word "argumentar" means just to add accurate reasons that support my case. It doesn't directly convey the idea that I'm convincing anyone in particular. It's just kind of giving reasons that make the case to be true. The next example is sort of a word-for-word translation. Could you please tell me your comments about it:

    - I wrote a paper. The professor told me that the proof of the theorem is very vague. I have to argue it better. (= I need to better support it, maybe rephrasing my reasons or maybe adding new ones in order to make it convincing).

    As far as I can understand from your comments, to use the verb I need to necessarily convince someone, like in the next example:

    - Tomorrow it's the international conference. The time when a specific mathematician arrives is 10 a.m. I need to argue my proof at that hour so he can see me. (I need to present and discuss my proof at that hour)


    I don't believe I have come across "argue out" until today.
    So, how do you express the idea of "argue out". Example: We need to argue out very careful the details of our divorce.
     

    Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    I have to argue it better.

    In the first example, I wrote a paper .... I might say "I have to give better arguments."

    In the second example, it's the international conference, I might say "I have to present my proof ...."
    We also might say "I have to defend my proof ...." This latter may be closest to what you have in mind.

    In my experience, we use words other than 'argue' to describe the process of discussing issues to a resolution:

    We need to work out the details of our divorce very carefully.
     

    Glasguensis

    Signal Modulation
    English - Scotland
    - I wrote a paper. The professor told me that the proof of the theorem is very vague. I have to argue it better. (= I need to better support it, maybe rephrasing my reasons or maybe adding new ones in order to make it convincing).
    That sentence is fine as far as I'm concerned.

    As far as I can understand from your comments, to use the verb I need to necessarily convince someone
    I think you have misunderstood - why would you be writing it in your paper if you weren't trying to convince anyone? You can argue something in writing just the same as you can argue it orally. In this sense of "to argue", it means to explain the logical basis for your point of view.
     

    valdemar

    Senior Member
    Español mexicano
    I think you have misunderstood - why would you be writing it in your paper if you weren't trying to convince anyone? You can argue something in writing just the same as you can argue it orally. In this sense of "to argue", it means to explain the logical basis for your point of view.
    Yes, you've got a point here!. What I wanted to say, taking Cage's rephrasing of my examples, is that there's a difference between "arguing" in the sense of "laying out a convincing proof" (just in general, like in a paper, not to convince anyone in particular) and "arguing" in the sense of "presenting a proof to the professor" (this means I'm talking in front of the professor explaining my proof). Now I know that both cases are also possible in Spanish but in English I needed to be sure of the first one. From what I can understand, both uses are correct and natural in English, which was what I wanted to know. If this is so, I think this is it and I really, really thank you guys for your help.

    Just for the record I also opened a thread in the spanish/english forum.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top