Datasets:

cris177

/

Arguments

like 4

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's laptop was found smashed, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's laptop was found smashed, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's laptop was found smashed, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's laptop was found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's laptop was found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's laptop was found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore laura's laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence laura's laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus laura's laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that laura's laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so laura's laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that laura's laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that laura's laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that laura's laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```Laura's laptop was not found smashed, since if laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```Laura's laptop was not found smashed, because if laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```Laura's laptop was not found smashed, as if laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's laptop was not found smashed 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, since if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, as if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, since if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, because if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, since if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, because if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>

<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the arson occurred on elm street Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>