<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'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 establishes 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, since 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, because 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, as 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
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 delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, since if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, because if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, since if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, because if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, as if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky 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 alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, since if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, because if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, as if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door 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 bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
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.