<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 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, thus 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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 suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities, because if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
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 using aliases and false identities, as if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities 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 using aliases and false identities
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home, since if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home, because if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home, as if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home 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 security system did not record the suspect entering their home
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, since if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, because if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, as if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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 find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
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.