<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of mental health issues 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 no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect had no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect had no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect had no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect had no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect had no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect had no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect had no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of mental health issues
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 no history of mental health issues, since if the suspect had a history of mental health issues 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 mental health issues 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 no history of mental health issues
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 no history of mental health issues, because if the suspect had a history of mental health issues 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 mental health issues 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 no history of mental health issues
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 no history of mental health issues, as if the suspect had a history of mental health issues 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 mental health issues 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 no history of mental health issues
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, since if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, 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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
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 the victim's car door handle, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle 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 the victim's car door handle
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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.