<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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, since if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, because if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, as if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, since if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, because if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, as if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms 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 cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms 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 cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms 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 cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms 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 cache of illegal firearms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms, since if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms, because if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 cache of illegal firearms, as if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were not accessed without authorization, since if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were not accessed without authorization, because if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 medical records were not accessed without authorization, as if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, since if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, because if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.