<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:
```No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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 the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, because if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, as if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop contained confidential company data 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 missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
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 phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, since if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, because if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, as if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of 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 suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of 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 had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, because if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, as if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
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 will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
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.