<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:
```A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, since 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.``` [/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:
```A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, because 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.``` [/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:
```A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, as 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.``` [/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 officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, since if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, because if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, as if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, because if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, as if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, since if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, because if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, as if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, since if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, because if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, as if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo 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 homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
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's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
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.