benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

BIG-Bench Hard / Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, being an ingredient of…

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 of all, being an ingredient of Gorgeous is necessary for not being an ingredient of Baked Eyeshadow. Next, something is not an ingredient of Gorgeous and, in addition, not an ingredient of Coverage Duo or not an ingredient of Deternined. Hence, there is something that is an ingredient of Baked Eyeshadow and not both an ingredient of Coverage Duo and an ingredient of Deternined."
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
7ed587d1-b0bd-5a19-8667-4a8ecfd0bab5
task_key
formal~5ffallacies--main--7ed587d1-b0bd-5a19-8667-4a8ecfd0bab5
task_revision_id
1
config / split
formal_fallacies / main

Official source

initial import