<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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows 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, which establishes 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:
```The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, since 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.``` [/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:
```The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, because 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.``` [/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:
```The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, as 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.``` [/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 suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, because if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, as if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, since if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, because if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, as if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, since if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, because if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, as if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, because if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, as if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to 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 history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to 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 history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to 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 history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to 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 history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to 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 history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to 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 history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
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.