<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:
```The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, 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 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:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, since if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, because if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, as if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, since if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, because if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, as if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m 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 robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, since if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, because if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, as if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store 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: Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
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 stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, because if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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.