<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, since if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, because if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, as if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, since if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
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 computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, as if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, since if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, because if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, as if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, since if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, because if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, as if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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:
```No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, since if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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:
```No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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:
```No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, as if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus'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 emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
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.