<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the 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 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, which implies 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>
|
<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, which shows 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>
|
<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, which establishes 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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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 victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, since if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, since if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, because if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar 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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, since if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, because if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, as if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, since if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, because if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
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.