<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 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as 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.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
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 arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
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 arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, because if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, as if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home, since if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home, because if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home, as if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, since if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, because if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, as if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim 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 social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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.