<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 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, which implies 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, which shows 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, which establishes 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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as 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.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, since if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, because if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, as if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, since if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, as if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals, since if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals, because if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals, as if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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:
```No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, since if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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:
```No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, because if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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:
```No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, as if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement 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 laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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.