<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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:
```A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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:
```A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, because if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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:
```A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, as if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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 forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at 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: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at 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 the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead, since if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead, because if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead, as if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead 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 strong motive for wanting the victim dead
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors, because if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on their doors
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 claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
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.