<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, since if emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, because if emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, as if emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle 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 social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on emily's clothing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was not found on emily's clothing, since if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was not found on emily's clothing, because if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 blood was not found on emily's clothing, as if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was found on emily's clothing 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 blood was not found on Emily's clothing
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, since if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, as if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river 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 figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
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.