<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect'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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, since 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, because 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, as 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, since if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, because if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, as if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail 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 had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, since if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, because if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, as if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags 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 security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, since if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim 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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, because if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim 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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim 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 collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
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.