<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:
```Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, as 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:
```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, 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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking other women
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 stalking other women 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 stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
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 stalking other women 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 stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
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 stalking other women 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 stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
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 stalking other women 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 stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
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 stalking other women 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 stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
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 stalking other women 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 stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
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 stalking other women 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 stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
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 stalking other women 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 stalking other women.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, since if john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, because if john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, as if john davis had a history of stalking other women then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 stalking other women
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, since if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, because if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, as if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door 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 neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, since if a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, because if a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, as if a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep 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 suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, 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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
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 violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, since if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, because if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, as if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 violating restraining orders
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.