<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, since if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, because if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, as if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, because if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, as if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, since if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, because if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, as if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, since if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, because if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, as if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, since if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, because if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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.