<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar, since if a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar, because if a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar, as if a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store 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 figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store 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 figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store 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 figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store 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 figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
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 figure in a clown mask approaching the store, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
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 figure in a clown mask approaching the store, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
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 figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, because if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, as if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, since if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, because if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, as if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, since if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, as if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.