<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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because 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> |
<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 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> |
<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 arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's missing laptop did not contain 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's missing laptop did not contain 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's missing laptop did not contain 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop did not contain 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's missing laptop did not contain 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's missing laptop did not contain 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's missing laptop did not contain 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop did not contain 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, because if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, as if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, since if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, because if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, as if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, because if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, as if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, because if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
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.