<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 a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, since if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, because if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, since if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, because if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, as if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, since if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, because if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, since if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, because if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, as if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, since if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, because if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, as if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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.