<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 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 establishes 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, since if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, because if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, as if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a secret storage unit, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a secret storage unit, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a secret storage unit, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a secret storage unit, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a secret storage unit, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a secret storage unit, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a secret storage unit, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a secret storage unit, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit, since if john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit, because if john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 secret storage unit, as if john davis had a secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit 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 secret storage unit
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, since if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, because if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, as if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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 diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, since if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, because if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, as if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, 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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of anger management issues
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 anger management issues 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 anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues 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 anger management issues
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 anger management issues 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 anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues 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 anger management issues
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 anger management issues 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 anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues 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 anger management issues
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 anger management issues 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 anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues 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 anger management issues
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 anger management issues 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 anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues 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 anger management issues
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 anger management issues 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 anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues 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 anger management issues
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 anger management issues 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 anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues 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 anger management issues
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 anger management issues 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 anger management issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of anger management issues 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 anger management issues
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.