<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of substance abuse, since if john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of substance abuse, because if john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of substance abuse, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's garage door was left open, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's garage door was left open, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's garage door was left open, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's garage door was left open, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's garage door was left open, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's garage door was left open, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's garage door was left open, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's garage door was left open, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's garage door was left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's garage door was left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's garage door was left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore laura's garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence laura's garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus laura's garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that laura's garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so laura's garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that laura's garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that laura's garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that laura's garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's garage door was not left open, since if laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's garage door was not left open, because if laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's garage door was not left open, as if laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's garage door was not left open
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and a broken chair was found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and a broken chair was found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and a broken chair was found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A broken chair was not found in the kitchen, since if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A broken chair was not found in the kitchen, because if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A broken chair was not found in the kitchen, as if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's passport is missing, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's passport is missing, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's passport is missing, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's passport is missing, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's passport is missing, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's passport is missing, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's passport is missing, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's passport is missing, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's passport is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's passport is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's passport is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's passport is missing
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore laura's passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence laura's passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus laura's passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that laura's passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so laura's passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that laura's passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that laura's passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that laura's passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's passport is not missing, since if laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's passport is not missing, because if laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's passport is not missing, as if laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's passport is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, since if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, because if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, as if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.