<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 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, since if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, because if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, as if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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: Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, since if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, as if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing 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:
```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, since if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing 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:
```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, because if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing 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:
```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, as if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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: No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, since if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, because if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, as if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
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 stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
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.