<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a 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 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, which implies 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>
|
<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, which shows 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>
|
<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, which establishes 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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim 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:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim 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:
```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim 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 the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, since if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, because if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, as if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, since if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, as if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, 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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals, since if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals, because if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 violence against other individuals, as if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals 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 violence against other individuals
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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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:
```No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, since if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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:
```No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, because if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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:
```No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, as if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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: No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
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.