<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 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 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, which implies 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> |
<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, which shows 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> |
<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, which establishes 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> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, since 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.``` [/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:
```Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, because 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.``` [/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:
```Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, as 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.``` [/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 a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, since if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, because if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, as if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, since if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, because if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, as if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, since if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, because if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, since if the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, because if the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, as if the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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.