<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 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, which implies 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, which shows 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, which establishes 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, since if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen 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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen 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 cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, because if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen 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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen 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 cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, as if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen 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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen 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 cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone, since if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone, because if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone 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 recorded argument with Laura on his phone
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were not deleted from her computer, since if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were not deleted from her computer, because if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 personal files were not deleted from her computer, as if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were deleted from her computer 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 personal files were not deleted from her computer
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night, since if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night, because if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
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 hearing glass breaking at night, as if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night 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 hearing glass breaking at night
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of identity theft, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of identity theft, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of identity theft, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of identity theft, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of identity theft, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of identity theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of identity theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of identity theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of identity theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore john davis did not have a history of identity theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence john davis did not have a history of identity theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus john davis did not have a history of identity theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of identity theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so john davis did not have a history of identity theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that john davis did not have a history of identity theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
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.