<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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, since if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, because if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, as if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on laura's bathroom mirror 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 message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, since if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, because if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, as if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's car was found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's car was found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's car was found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was not found with a slashed tire, since if laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was not found with a slashed tire, because if laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 car was not found with a slashed tire, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was found with a slashed tire 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 car was not found with a slashed tire
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, because if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, as if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, since if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, because if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer had a hidden camera installed 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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
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.