<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of 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 establishes 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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as 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.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim 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 making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim 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 making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim 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 making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, since if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, because if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, as if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, because if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, as if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, since if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, because if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, as if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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.