<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 sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, because if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, as if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, since if the store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, because if the store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, as if the store's security system had been tampered with before 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 security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, since if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, because if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, as if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, since if richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, because if richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, as if richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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.