<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 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's 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 neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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, hence no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's 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 neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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 no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's 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 neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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 no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's 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 neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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 no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's 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 neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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 no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's 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 neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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 no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's 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 neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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 no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, since if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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 a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, because if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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 a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, as if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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 a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's 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: No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's 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 john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis was found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis was found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis was found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was not found with a bag of cash, since if john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was not found with a bag of cash, because if john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 was not found with a bag of cash, as if john davis was found with a bag of cash 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 was found with a bag of cash 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 was not found with a bag of cash
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's mail was tampered with, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's mail was tampered with, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's mail was tampered with, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's mail was tampered with, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's mail was tampered with, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's mail was tampered with, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's mail was tampered with, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's mail was tampered with, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's mail was tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's mail was tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's mail was tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's mail was tampered with
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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was not tampered with, since if laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was not tampered with, because if laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 mail was not tampered with, as if laura's mail was tampered with 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 mail was tampered with 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 mail was not tampered with
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, since if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, as if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
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 arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
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 scratches on his arms and neck 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 scratches on his arms and neck.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck 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 scratches on his arms and neck
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 arms and neck 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 scratches on his arms and neck.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck 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 scratches on his arms and neck
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 arms and neck 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 scratches on his arms and neck.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck 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 scratches on his arms and neck
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 arms and neck 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 scratches on his arms and neck.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck 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 scratches on his arms and neck
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.