<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a 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, hence 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>
|
<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, thus 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>
|
<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, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera captured the suspect 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>
|
<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, so 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>
|
<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, which implies that 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>
|
<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, which shows that 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>
|
<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, which establishes that 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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect 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.``` [/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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a hidden camera captured the suspect 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.``` [/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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a hidden camera captured the suspect 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.``` [/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>
|
<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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, because 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, as 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data, since if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data, because if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data, as if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, 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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools, since if the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools, because if the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
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 shovel and other digging tools, as if the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools 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 shovel and other digging tools
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, because if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, as if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard 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 neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause 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 life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause 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 life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause 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 life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause 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 life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.