<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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if richard anderson'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>
|
<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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, since if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, because if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, as if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, since if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, because if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, as if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, since if a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, because if a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, as if a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop 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 diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker, since if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker, because if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker, as if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
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 was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, since if emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, because if emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
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.