<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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because 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> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the suspect's 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> |
<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 arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, 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 arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, since if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, because if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, as if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems, since if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems, because if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems, as if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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:
```No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, since if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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:
```No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, because if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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:
```No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, since if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, because if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.