<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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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>
|
<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 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>
|
<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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the victim's will had not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, because 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, as 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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 witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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:
```No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, since if a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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:
```No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, because if a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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:
```No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, as if a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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: No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night 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 fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, 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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 found on the victim's car trunk, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk 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 found on the victim's car trunk
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 camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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:
```No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, since if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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:
```No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, because if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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:
```No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, as if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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: No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night 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 had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, since if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, because if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
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.