<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 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, thus 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, since if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, because if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, as if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, since if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, because if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, as if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe 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 coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, because if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, as if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily 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 trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, since if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, because if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, as if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
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 had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
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 had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
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 had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
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.