<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 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 shows 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, which establishes 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:
```Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, since 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.``` [/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:
```Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, because 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.``` [/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:
```Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, as 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.``` [/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 the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was not changed without authorization, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was not changed without authorization, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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's alarm code was not changed without authorization, as if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was changed without authorization 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's alarm code was not changed without authorization
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, since if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, because if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake 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 witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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:
```Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, since if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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:
```Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, because if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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:
```Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days 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: Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, since if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, because if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, as if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
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 best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.