<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 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 shows 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, which establishes 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:
```The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, since 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.``` [/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:
```The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, because 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.``` [/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:
```The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, as 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.``` [/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 a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, because if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, as if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, since if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, because if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, as if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, since if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, as if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
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 missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
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 missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
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 missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
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 missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
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 missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
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 missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
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.