<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's life insurance policy had 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 shows 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, which establishes 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:
```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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 suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, since if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, because if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, as if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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:
```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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: No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, because if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, as if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, since if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, because if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, as if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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.