<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If water is h2o 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 water is not h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence water is not h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus water is not h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that water is not h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so water is not h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that water is not h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that water is not h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that water is not h2o.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Water is not h2o, since if water is h2o 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 water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Water is not h2o, because if water is h2o 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 water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Water is not h2o, as if water is h2o 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 water is h2o 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: Water is not H2O
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and cats are mammals, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and cats are mammals, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and cats are mammals, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and cats are mammals, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and cats are mammals, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and cats are mammals, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and cats are mammals, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and cats are mammals, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and cats are mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and cats are mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and cats are mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Cats are mammals
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 cats are mammals 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 cats are not mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If cats are mammals 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 cats are not mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If cats are mammals 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 cats are not mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If cats are mammals 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 cats are not mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If cats are mammals 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 cats are not mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If cats are mammals 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 cats are not mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If cats are mammals 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 cats are not mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If cats are mammals 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 cats are not mammals.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Cats are not mammals, since if cats are mammals 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 cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Cats are not mammals, because if cats are mammals 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 cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Cats are not mammals, as if cats are mammals 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 cats are mammals 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: Cats are not mammals
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and dogs are not fish, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and dogs are not fish, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and dogs are not fish, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and dogs are not fish, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and dogs are not fish, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and dogs are not fish, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and dogs are not fish, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and dogs are not fish, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and dogs are not fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and dogs are not fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and dogs are not fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Dogs are not fish
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 dogs are not fish 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 dogs are fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If dogs are not fish 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 dogs are fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If dogs are not fish 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 dogs are fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If dogs are not fish 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 dogs are fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If dogs are not fish 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 dogs are fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If dogs are not fish 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 dogs are fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If dogs are not fish 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 dogs are fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If dogs are not fish 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 dogs are fish.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Dogs are fish, since if dogs are not fish 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 dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Dogs are fish, because if dogs are not fish 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 dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Dogs are fish, as if dogs are not fish 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 dogs are not fish 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: Dogs are fish
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and paris is in france, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and paris is in france, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and paris is in france, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and paris is in france, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and paris is in france, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and paris is in france, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and paris is in france, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and paris is in france, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and paris is in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and paris is in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and paris is in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Paris is in france
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 paris is in france 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 paris is not in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If paris is in france 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 paris is not in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If paris is in france 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 paris is not in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If paris is in france 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 paris is not in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If paris is in france 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 paris is not in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If paris is in france 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 paris is not in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If paris is in france 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 paris is not in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If paris is in france 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 paris is not in france.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Paris is not in france, since if paris is in france 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 paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Paris is not in france, because if paris is in france 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 paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Paris is not in france, as if paris is in france 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 paris is in france 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: Paris is not in France
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the eiffel tower is in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the eiffel tower is in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the eiffel tower is in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The eiffel tower is in paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is not in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is not in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is not in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is not in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is not in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is not in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is not in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is not in paris.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The eiffel tower is not in paris, since if the eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The eiffel tower is not in paris, because if the eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The eiffel tower is not in paris, as if the eiffel tower is in paris 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 eiffel tower is in paris 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 Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If sally is older than john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and sally is older than john, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If sally is older than john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Sally is older than john
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.