<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 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, since 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, because 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, as 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked 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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, since if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, because if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, as if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago 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 jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
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 sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, since if sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, because if sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, as if sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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:
```Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, since if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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:
```Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, because if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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:
```Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, as if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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 jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.