<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If 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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
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 business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, since if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, because if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, as if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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 no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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 no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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 no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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 no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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 no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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 no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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 no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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 no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, since if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, because if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, as if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby 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: No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
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 bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, since if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, because if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, as if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to 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's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, since if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, because if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, as if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
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 alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
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.