<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, since if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, because if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, as if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, since if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, because if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, as if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, since if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, because if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, as if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
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 stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, because if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, since if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, because if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, as if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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.