<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 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, so it can be concluded that 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, so 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, which implies that 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, which shows that 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, which establishes that 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, since if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's pet cat is missing, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's pet cat is missing, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's pet cat is missing, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's pet cat is missing, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's pet cat is missing, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's pet cat is missing, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's pet cat is missing, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's pet cat is missing, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's pet cat is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's pet cat is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's pet cat is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's pet cat is missing
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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is not missing, since if laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is not missing, because if laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 pet cat is not missing, as if laura's pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is missing 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 pet cat is not missing
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect, since if a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect, because if a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect, as if a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, because if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, as if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had recently changed the locks on her doors 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 had not recently changed the locks on her doors
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis has a history of violent behavior.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis has a history of violent behavior.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis has a history of violent behavior.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis has a history of violent behavior
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior 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 john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior 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: John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis has a history of violent behavior 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 john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior 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: John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis has a history of violent behavior 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 john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior 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: John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis has a history of violent behavior 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 john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis has a history of violent behavior 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: John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.