<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 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 shows 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, which establishes 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:
```John davis did not have a history of identity theft, since 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.``` [/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:
```John davis did not have a history of identity theft, because 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.``` [/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:
```John davis did not have a history of identity theft, as 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.``` [/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 laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats, since if laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats, because if laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats, as if laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family reported receiving anonymous threats 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 family did not report receiving anonymous threats
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, since if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, because if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, as if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, since if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, because if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, as if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe 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's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's house was booby-trapped, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's house was booby-trapped, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's house was booby-trapped, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's house was booby-trapped, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's house was booby-trapped, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's house was booby-trapped, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's house was booby-trapped, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's house was booby-trapped, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's house was booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's house was booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's house was booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's house was booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was not booby-trapped, since if laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was not booby-trapped, because if laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 house was not booby-trapped, as if laura's house was booby-trapped 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 house was booby-trapped 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 house was not booby-trapped
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 cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.