<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, since if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, since if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, because if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, as if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, since if a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, because if a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, as if a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment 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 car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
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 car keys were not missing from their apartment, since if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
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 car keys were not missing from their apartment, because if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
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 car keys were not missing from their apartment, as if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect had no history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect had no history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect had no history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect had no history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect had no history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect had no history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect had no history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect had no history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of mental health issues, since if the suspect had a history of mental health issues 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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of mental health issues, because if the suspect had a history of mental health issues 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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of mental health issues, as if the suspect had a history of mental health issues 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 mental health issues then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
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.