<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:
```A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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:
```A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, because if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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:
```A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, as if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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 the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead, since if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead, because if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead, as if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors, because if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
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 claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, since if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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.