<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 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, which implies 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, which shows 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, which establishes 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, since 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, because 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, as 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, since if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, because if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, as if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, since if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, because if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, as if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
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 co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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:
```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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:
```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, because if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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:
```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, as if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings 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 Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
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.