<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 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 shows 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, which establishes 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:
```John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, since 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.``` [/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:
```John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, because 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.``` [/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:
```John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, as 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.``` [/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 a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor heard a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor heard a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a neighbor heard a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A neighbor heard a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a neighbor heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not hear a gunshot, since if a neighbor heard a gunshot 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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not hear a gunshot, because if a neighbor heard a gunshot 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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A neighbor did not hear a gunshot, as if a neighbor heard a gunshot 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 heard a gunshot then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's social media accounts were hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's social media accounts were hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's social media accounts were hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's social media accounts were hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were not hacked, since if laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were not hacked, because if laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 social media accounts were not hacked, as if laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were hacked 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 social media accounts were not hacked
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 had not recently purchased a firearm, since if john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 had not recently purchased a firearm, because if john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 had not recently purchased a firearm, as if john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 recently purchased a firearm 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 had not recently purchased a firearm
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, since if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, because if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, as if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary contains mentions of threats from john 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 diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.