<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 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, hence 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>
<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, thus 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>
<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, so it can be concluded that 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>
<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, so 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>
<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, which implies that 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>
<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, which shows that 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>
<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, which establishes that 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>
<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 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.``` [/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>
<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 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.``` [/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>
<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 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.``` [/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>
<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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene Conclusion: The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, since if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars 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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars 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 stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, because if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars 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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars 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 stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, as if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars 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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars 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 stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, since if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, as if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby 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 Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, because if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, as if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery 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 store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, since if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, because if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity: ```A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, as if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits 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 homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene Premise 2: The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees 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 store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees Type of argument: modus tollen Validity: True </s>