<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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if detective 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>
|
<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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore detective martin did not discover 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence detective martin did not discover 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus detective martin did not discover 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that detective martin did not discover 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so detective martin did not discover 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that detective martin did not discover 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that detective martin did not discover 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that detective martin did not discover 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, because 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, as 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 officer smith did not find 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily had recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily had recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily had recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, since if emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, because if emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, as if emily had recently taken a self-defense course 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 recently taken a self-defense course 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 had not recently taken a self-defense course
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, since if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, because if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, as if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow 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 note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the stolen van was registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the stolen van was registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the stolen van was registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The stolen van was registered in a fake name
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The stolen van was not registered in a fake name, since if the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The stolen van was not registered in a fake name, because if the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The stolen van was not registered in a fake name, as if the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name 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: The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
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 emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, since if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, because if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
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.