<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 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 establishes 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because 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.``` [/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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as 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.``` [/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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, since if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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 footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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 footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, as if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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 footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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: Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had installed a home security system, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had installed a home security system, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had installed a home security system, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had installed a home security system, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had installed a home security system, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had installed a home security system, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had installed a home security system, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had installed a home security system
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore laura had not installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence laura had not installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus laura had not installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura had not installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so laura had not installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that laura had not installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that laura had not installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that laura had not installed a home security system.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura had not installed a home security system, since if laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura had not installed a home security system, because if laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura had not installed a home security system, as if laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had installed a home security system then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not installed a home security system
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, since if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, because if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, as if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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 recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms, since if john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms, because if john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 bruises on his arms, as if john davis had bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms 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 bruises on his arms
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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A strand of hair was found at the crime 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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene 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 strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
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.