<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 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, hence 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>
|
<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, thus 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>
|
<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, so it can be concluded that 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>
|
<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, so 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>
|
<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, which implies that 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>
|
<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, which shows that 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>
|
<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, which establishes that 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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the 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.``` [/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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the 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.``` [/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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if the 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.``` [/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>
|
<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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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:
```The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, since if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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:
```The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, because if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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:
```The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, as if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before 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: The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before 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 sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, since if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, because if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, as if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, since if a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, because if a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, as if a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home 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 jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, since if a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, because if a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, as if a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster 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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate 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 had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate 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 had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
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 had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate 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 had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate 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 had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.