<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 the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
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 cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
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 cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
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 cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
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 cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
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 cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
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 cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
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 cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, since if the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, because if the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, as if the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the arson occurred on elm street, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the arson occurred on elm street, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the arson occurred on elm street, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the arson occurred on elm street, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the arson occurred on elm street, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the arson occurred on elm street, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the arson occurred on elm street, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the arson occurred on elm street, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The arson occurred on elm street
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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson did not occur on elm street, since if the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson did not occur on elm street, because if the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson did not occur on elm street, as if the arson occurred on elm street 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 arson occurred on elm street 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 arson did not occur on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, since if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, because if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, as if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is laura martinez, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is laura martinez, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is laura martinez, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is laura martinez, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is laura martinez, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is laura martinez, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is laura martinez, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the victim's name is laura martinez, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's name is laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's name is laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the victim's name is laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The victim's name is laura martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not laura martinez.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's name is not laura martinez, since if the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's name is not laura martinez, because if the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's name is not laura martinez, as if the victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is laura martinez 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 victim's name is not Laura Martinez
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's name is john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's name is john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's name is john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's name is john davis
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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not john davis.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's name is not john davis, since if the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's name is not john davis, because if the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect's name is not john davis, as if the suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is john davis 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 suspect's name is not John Davis
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
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.