<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, since if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, because if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, as if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, since if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, as if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, because if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, as if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, since if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, because if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, as if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, since if the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, because if the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, as if the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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.