benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

BIG-Bench Hard / Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Whatever is not an…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

input

"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Whatever is not an ingredient of SILKY LIP PENCIL 52 is an ingredient of Ultacover. From this follows: Nothing is neither an ingredient of Ultacover nor an ingredient of SILKY LIP PENCIL 52."
Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?
Options:
- valid 
- invalid

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

task_id
7a2db3ca-9ea2-55b7-8d8d-8882f4de5437
task_key
formal~5ffallacies--main--7a2db3ca-9ea2-55b7-8d8d-8882f4de5437
task_revision_id
1
config / split
formal_fallacies / main

Official source

initial import