<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 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 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, which implies 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>
|
<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, which shows 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>
|
<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, which establishes 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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, since 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.``` [/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:
```John davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, because 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.``` [/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:
```John davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, as 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.``` [/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 laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently, since if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently, because if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 history of changing her locks frequently, as if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently 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 history of changing her locks frequently
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, since if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, because if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, as if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs, since if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs, because if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 collection of disturbing photographs, as if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs 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 collection of disturbing photographs
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's dog was found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's dog was found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's dog was found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was not found locked in a closet, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was not found locked in a closet, because if laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 dog was not found locked in a closet, as if laura's dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was found locked in a closet 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 dog was not found locked in a closet
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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen
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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen
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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen
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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen
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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen
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.