<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:
```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, since 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.``` [/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:
```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, because 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.``` [/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:
```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, as 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.``` [/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 the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns, since if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns, because if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns, as if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, because if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, as if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, since if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, because if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, as if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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.