<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 emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
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 was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, since if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, because if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, as if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, since if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, because if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, as if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, since if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, because if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, as if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, since if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, because if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.