<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:
```Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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:
```Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, 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 officer smith did not find 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: 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 a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, since if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, because if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, as if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, since if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, because if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, as if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, since if emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, because if emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, as if emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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 did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
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 cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
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 cat was not found abandoned outside her house, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
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 cat was not found abandoned outside her house, because if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
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 cat was not found abandoned outside her house, as if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.