<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:
```Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, 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 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:
```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar, since if a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar, because if a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar, as if a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar 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 fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, because if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, as if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, since if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, because if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, as if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment 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 missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
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.