<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 sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, because if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, as if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, since if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, because if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, as if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's security system had not been tampered with before 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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, since if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, because if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, as if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom 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 Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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 richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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 richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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 richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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 richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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 richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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 richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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: Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
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.