<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 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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:
```Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, since if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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:
```Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, because if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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:
```Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, as if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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: Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, since if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, because if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, as if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, since if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, because if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, as if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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: A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, since if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, because if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder 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: A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country 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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country 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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country 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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country 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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country 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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country 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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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 recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country 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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country 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 had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
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.