<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 laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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: Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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: Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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: Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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: Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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: Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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: Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, since if laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 laura's phone records show calls to 911 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: Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, because if laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 laura's phone records show calls to 911 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: Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, as if laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 laura's phone records show calls to 911 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: Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security camera captured the suspect entering the building, since if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security camera captured the suspect entering the building, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No security camera captured the suspect entering the building, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's jewelry box was emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's jewelry box was emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's jewelry box was emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's jewelry box was emptied
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was not emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was not emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was not emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was not emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was not emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was not emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was not emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was not emptied.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's jewelry box was not emptied, since if laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's jewelry box was not emptied, because if laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's jewelry box was not emptied, as if laura's jewelry box was emptied 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 laura's jewelry box was emptied 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: Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer brown discovered a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer brown discovered a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer brown discovered a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer brown discovered a hidden basement
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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, since if officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, because if officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, as if officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement 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: Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, since if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, because if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, as if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is he was at work during the incident 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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
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.