<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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 witness testimonies do not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence witness testimonies do not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus witness testimonies do not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that witness testimonies do not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so witness testimonies do not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that witness testimonies do not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that witness testimonies do not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that witness testimonies do not 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, since if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, because if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, as if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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: Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, since if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, because if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, as if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects 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: Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
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 a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, since if a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, because if a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, as if a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's name is sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's name is sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's name is sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is sarah mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not sarah mitchell.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is not sarah mitchell, since if the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is not sarah mitchell, because if the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
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 name is not sarah mitchell, as if the victim's name is sarah mitchell 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 name is sarah mitchell 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 name is not Sarah Mitchell
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, since if forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, because if forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, as if forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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: Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
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.