<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a 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 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, which implies 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>
|
<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, which shows 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>
|
<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, which establishes 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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, since 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.``` [/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:
```No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, because 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.``` [/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:
```No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, as 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.``` [/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 emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, because if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, as if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, since if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, because if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, as if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine, since if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine, because if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine, as if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, since if sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, because if sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, as if sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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 gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession
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 gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession
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 gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession
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 gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession
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 gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession
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.