<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 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 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, which implies 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>
|
<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, which shows 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>
|
<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, which establishes 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>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```John davis does not have a history of violent behavior, since 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.``` [/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:
```John davis does not have a history of violent behavior, because 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.``` [/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:
```John davis does not have a history of violent behavior, as 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.``` [/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 laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's laptop was found smashed, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's laptop was found smashed, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's laptop was found smashed, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's laptop was found smashed, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's laptop was found smashed, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's laptop was found smashed, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's laptop was found smashed, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's laptop was found smashed, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's laptop was found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's laptop was found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's laptop was found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's laptop was found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was not found smashed, since if laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was not found smashed, because if laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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 laptop was not found smashed, as if laura's laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was found smashed 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 laptop was not found smashed
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, since if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, as if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle 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's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, since if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, because if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, since if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, because if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation 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 coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
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 had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
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 had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
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 had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
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 had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
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 had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
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.