<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a 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, hence 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>
|
<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, thus 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>
|
<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, so it can be concluded that 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>
|
<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, so 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>
|
<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, which implies that 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>
|
<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, which shows that 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>
|
<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, which establishes that 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>
|
<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 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.``` [/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>
|
<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 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.``` [/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>
|
<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 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.``` [/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>
|
<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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, since if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, because if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the 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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, since if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, because if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, as if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime 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 bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, since if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, because if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, since if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, because if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, as if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim 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 suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home 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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home 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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home 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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home 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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.