<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:
```No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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 the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, since if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, because if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, as if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems, since if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems, because if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 history of gambling debts and financial problems, as if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems 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 history of gambling debts and financial problems
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 caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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:
```No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, since if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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:
```No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, because if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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:
```No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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: No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.