<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 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, which implies 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, which shows 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, which establishes 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, since 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, because 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
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 social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, as 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, because if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, as if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, since if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, because if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, as if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
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 documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
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.