<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 laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
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 had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
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 had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
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 had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
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 had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
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 had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, since if laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, because if laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, as if laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a secret storage room in her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, since if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, because if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, as if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a life insurance policy, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a life insurance policy, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a life insurance policy, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a life insurance policy, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a life insurance policy, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a life insurance policy, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a life insurance policy, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a life insurance policy
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore laura did not have a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence laura did not have a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus laura did not have a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura did not have a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so laura did not have a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that laura did not have a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that laura did not have a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
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 had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that laura did not have a life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura did not have a life insurance policy, since if laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura did not have a life insurance policy, because if laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura did not have a life insurance policy, as if laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura did not have a life insurance policy
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of financial problems, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of financial problems, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of financial problems, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of financial problems, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of financial problems, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of financial problems, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of financial problems, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of financial problems, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of financial problems
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore john davis did not have a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence john davis did not have a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus john davis did not have a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so john davis did not have a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
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 a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of financial problems, since if john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of financial problems, because if john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of financial problems, as if john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, since if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, as if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
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 reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
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 reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.