<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 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 establishes 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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because 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.``` [/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:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as 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.``` [/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 arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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 arson did not occur on elm street, hence the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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 arson did not occur on elm street, thus the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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 arson did not occur on elm street, so the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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 arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, as if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur 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 arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, since if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, because if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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:
```Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, since if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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:
```Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, because if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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:
```Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, since if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, because if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, as if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.