<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:
```The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, as if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect 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 a restraining order against the suspect 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 did not have a restraining order against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, since if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, since if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, because if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, as if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, since if a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, because if a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, as if a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
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 car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
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 car keys were not missing from their apartment, since if the victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
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 car keys were not missing from their apartment, because if the victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
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 car keys were not missing from their apartment, as if the victim's car keys were missing from their 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their 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: The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, 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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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 mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of mental health issues.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of mental health issues
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.