<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past 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 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence john davis did not have 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus john davis did not have 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so john davis did not have 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that john davis did not have 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that john davis did not have 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
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 officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that john davis did not have 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: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past, since if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past 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 restraining order violation in the past 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 restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past, because if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past 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 restraining order violation in the past 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 restraining order violation in the past
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 restraining order violation in the past, as if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past 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 restraining order violation in the past 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 restraining order violation in the past
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident, since if laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident, because if laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident, as if laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was disabled before the incident 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 alarm system was not disabled before the incident
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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 no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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 no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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 no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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 no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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 no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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 no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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 no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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 no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, since if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, because if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, as if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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: No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and laura had recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
Conclusion: Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, therefore laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, thus laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, since if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, as if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, hence officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, thus officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, so officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, which implies that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, which shows that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, which establishes that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness heard screams coming from laura's house, since if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness heard screams coming from laura's house, because if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s>
|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No witness heard screams coming from laura's house, as if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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: No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
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 psychiatric issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, therefore officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Premise 2: John davis had a history of psychiatric issues
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.