<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 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, thus 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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 neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, since if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, because if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, as if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, since if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, because if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, as if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses 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's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, since if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, because if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, as if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard 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 pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, since if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, because if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, as if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary 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 did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
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.