<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'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 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, which implies 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> |
<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, which shows 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> |
<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, which establishes 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> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, since 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.``` [/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:
```The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, because 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.``` [/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:
```The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, as 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.``` [/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 victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, since if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, because if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, as if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, since if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, because if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, as if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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:
```The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, since if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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:
```The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, because if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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:
```The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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.