<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 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, which implies 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, which shows 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, which establishes 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.``` [/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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, since if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, because if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, as if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 had scratches on his face during the arrest 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 did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, since if laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, because if laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, as if laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, because if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, as if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox 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 handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, since if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, because if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, as if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of laura's personal documents.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of laura's personal documents.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of laura's personal documents.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of laura's personal documents.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of laura's personal documents.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
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 was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of laura's personal documents.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
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.