2

I googled the meaning of "I would argue that" and one site said: a phrase used to introduce an argument:

I would argue that Ferguson's courts prevented the justice system.

I also found these:

However, I would argue that these benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks.

In fact, I would argue that it goes against the values of a free and fair society to force a group of people to do something against their will.

In the first example , the tense after "I would argue that" was past but in the latter two , the tenses were present.

What is the difference between "I would argue that" and "I argue that"?

Can we bring any tense after "I would argue that"?

2

I would argue that it will certainly rain tomorrow.

is milder and less direct in tone than

I argue that it will certainly rain tomorrow.

The form with "would" is a little more soft and polite. The speaker openly admits that he may not be 100% right about the issue.

Note that I used will in both my example sentences. The part starting with "that" is a content clause, and it can assume any tense, because its tense does not depend on would:

I would argue [that it will rain tomorrow].
I would argue [that it rained yesterday].
I would argue [that it rains often in this city, because it is surrounded by mountains.]
I would argue [that it would have rained if we had been in my home city instead.]


The word whose tense directly depends on "would" is "argue". It can assume only the Present Simple form:

I would argue (CORRECT)
I would argued (WRONG)

  • Thank you very much. Explained in detail but I have one question. You said "it can assume any tense, because its tense does not depend on would". Considering this , can we write something like "I would argue that it would rain tomorrow."? – Antonio Conte Aug 6 '17 at 8:07
  • @AntonioConte - yes – CowperKettle Aug 6 '17 at 8:07
  • @AntonioConte - everything that comes after that is another clause. This clause has its own subject ("it") and its own verb phrase ("would rain"). It is not restrained by the presence of "would" in the main clause. – CowperKettle Aug 6 '17 at 8:25
  • 1
    The clause after "argue" is not a relative clause. It's a content clause. – user178049 Jan 22 '18 at 8:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.