<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:
```A gas leak was not detected in the basement, as 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:
```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, 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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a history of substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of substance abuse
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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse, since if john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse, because if john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 substance abuse, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse 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 substance abuse 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 substance abuse
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's garage door was left open, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's garage door was left open, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's garage door was left open, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's garage door was left open, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's garage door was left open, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's garage door was left open, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's garage door was left open, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's garage door was left open, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's garage door was left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's garage door was left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's garage door was left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's garage door was left open
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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was not left open, since if laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was not left open, because if laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 garage door was not left open, as if laura's garage door was left open 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 garage door was left open 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 garage door was not left open
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a broken chair was found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a broken chair was found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a broken chair was found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A broken chair was found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A broken chair was not found in the kitchen, since if a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A broken chair was not found in the kitchen, because if a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A broken chair was not found in the kitchen, as if a broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was found in the kitchen 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 broken chair was not found in the kitchen
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 passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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 passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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 passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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 passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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 passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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 passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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 passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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 passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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, since if laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's passport is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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, because if laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's passport is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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 passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's passport is missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport is missing then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing, since if laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing, because if laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 passport is not missing, as if laura's passport 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 passport 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 passport 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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.