<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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 the stolen car was not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the stolen car was not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the stolen car was not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the stolen car was not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the stolen car was not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the stolen car was not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the stolen car was not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the stolen car was not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, since if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, because if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, as if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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: The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, since if a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, because if a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, as if a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, since if the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, because if the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, as if the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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 the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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: The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, since if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, because if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, as if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage 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: The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, since if a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, because if a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, as if a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
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.