<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 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, thus 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, since if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, because if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, as if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house 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: Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, since if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, because if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, as if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement 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 Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, since if the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, because if the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, as if the security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation 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 security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation 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 footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, since if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, because if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, as if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
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.