<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:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's wedding ring is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's wedding ring is missing
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's wedding ring is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's wedding ring is missing
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore laura's wedding ring is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence laura's wedding ring is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus laura's wedding ring is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura's wedding ring is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so laura's wedding ring is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that laura's wedding ring is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that laura's wedding ring is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that laura's wedding ring is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's wedding ring is not missing, since if laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's wedding ring is not missing, because if laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura's wedding ring is not missing, as if laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's wedding ring is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura's wedding ring is not missing
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of stalking laura
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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura, since if john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura, because if john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 a history of stalking laura, as if john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking laura 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 a history of stalking Laura
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a shattered vase was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a shattered vase was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a shattered vase was found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A shattered vase was found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A shattered vase was not found in the hallway, since if a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A shattered vase was not found in the hallway, because if a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A shattered vase was not found in the hallway, as if a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 shattered vase was not found in the hallway
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's prescription medications were stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's prescription medications were stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's prescription medications were stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's prescription medications were stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were not stolen, since if laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were not stolen, because if laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 prescription medications were not stolen, as if laura's prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were stolen 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 prescription medications were not stolen
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a gas leak was detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a gas leak was detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a gas leak was detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A gas leak was detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A gas leak was not detected in the basement, since if a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A gas leak was not detected in the basement, because if a gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was detected in the basement 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 gas leak was not detected in the basement
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.