<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 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, thus 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since 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.``` [/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:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, because 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.``` [/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:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, as 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.``` [/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 the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data, since if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data, because if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data, as if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools, since if the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools, because if the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools, as if the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, because if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, as if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause 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 life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, since if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, because if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, as if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
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.