<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 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, hence 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> |
<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, thus 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> |
<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, so it can be concluded that 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> |
<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, so 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> |
<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, which implies that 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> |
<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, which shows that 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> |
<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, which establishes that 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> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a forensic expert 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.``` [/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> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a forensic expert 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.``` [/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> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a forensic expert 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.``` [/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> |
<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 the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair 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 a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/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: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, since if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
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 the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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.