<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's 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, which implies 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, which shows 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, which establishes 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, since if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement 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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement 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 laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, because if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement 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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement 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 laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, as if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement 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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement 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 laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
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 dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, because if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, as if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, since if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, because if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, as if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect 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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, since if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, because if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, as if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
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.