<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:
```Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, 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 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:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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 fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and it is raining today, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and it is raining today, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and it is raining today, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and it is raining today, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and it is raining today, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and it is raining today, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and it is raining today, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and it is raining today, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and it is raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and it is raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and it is raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: It is raining today
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 it is raining today 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 it is not raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If it is raining today 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 it is not raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If it is raining today 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 it is not raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If it is raining today 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 it is not raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If it is raining today 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 is not raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If it is raining today 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 it is not raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If it is raining today 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 it is not raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If it is raining today 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 it is not raining today.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```It is not raining today, since if it is raining today 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 it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```It is not raining today, because if it is raining today 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 it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```It is not raining today, as if it is raining today 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 it is raining today 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: It is not raining today
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sky is blue, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sky is blue, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sky is blue, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sky is blue, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sky is blue, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sky is blue, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sky is blue, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sky is blue, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the sky is blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the sky is blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the sky is blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sky is blue
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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The sky is not blue, since if the sky is blue 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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The sky is not blue, because if the sky is blue 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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The sky is not blue, as if the sky is blue 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 sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sun is shining, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sun is shining, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sun is shining, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sun is shining, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sun is shining, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sun is shining, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sun is shining, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the sun is shining, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the sun is shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the sun is shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the sun is shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The sun is shining
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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The sun is not shining, since if the sun is shining 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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The sun is not shining, because if the sun is shining 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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The sun is not shining, as if the sun is shining 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 sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and water is h2o, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and water is h2o, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and water is h2o, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and water is h2o, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and water is h2o, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and water is h2o, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and water is h2o, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and water is h2o, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and water is h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and water is h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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 water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and water is h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Water is h2o
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.