<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a 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 establishes 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, since 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, because 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, as 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns, since if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns, because if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
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 changed their locks due to security concerns, as if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns 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 changed their locks due to security concerns
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, because if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, as if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen 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 fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
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.