<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 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, which implies 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, which shows 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, which establishes 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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as 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.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, since if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, since if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, because if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar 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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, since if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, because if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, as if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, since if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, because if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user 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 social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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.