<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 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as 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.``` [/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 the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 the arson did not occur on elm street, so no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, since if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, because if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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 hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, as if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, since if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, because if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, as if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, since if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, because if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, as if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, since if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, because if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, as if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
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.