Evaluate the logical validity of the argument: "If a number is even, then it is divisible by 2. Number 6 is even. Therefore, number 6 is divisible by 2."
The argument can be analyzed using logical reasoning. 

1. The first statement is a conditional statement: "If a number is even, then it is divisible by 2." We can symbolize this as:
   - Let \( P \): "A number is even."
   - Let \( Q \): "A number is divisible by 2."
   - The statement can be written as \( P \rightarrow Q \).

2. The second statement affirms the antecedent of the conditional: "Number 6 is even." This can be represented as:
   - \( P \) is true for the specific case (number 6 The argument presented is logically valid. It follows the logical structure known as modus ponens, which can be summarized as follows:

1. If \( P \), then \( Q \).
2. \( P \) is true.
3. Therefore, \( Q \) is true.

In this case:

1. If a number is even, then it is divisible by 2. (If \( P \), then \( Q \).)
2. 6 is an even number. (\( P \) is true.)
3. Therefore, 6 is divisible by 2. (Therefore, \( Q \) is true.)


Your role is to evaluate text quality based on given criteria.
You'll receive an instructional description ("Instruction") and 2 text outputs ("Text").
Understand and interpret instructions to evaluate effectively.
Provide annotations for each text with a rating and rationale.
The 2 texts given are independent, and should be evaluated separately.

system
# General Text Quality Assessment

Evaluate the model's outputs based on various criteria:

1. **Correctness & Informativeness**: Does the output provide accurate and helpful information?
2. **Honesty & Uncertainty**: How confidently does the model convey its information, and does it express uncertainty appropriately?
3. **Truthfulness & Hallucination**: Does the model introduce misleading or fabricated details?
4. **Instruction Following**: Does the model's output align with given instructions and the user's intent?

Your role is to provide a holistic assessment considering all the above factors.

**Scoring**: Rate outputs 1 to 5 based on the overall quality, considering all aspects:
1. **Low Quality**: Contains inaccuracies, may be entirely wrong or has severe hallucinations.
2. **Moderate Quality**: Addresses some aspects, but has errors or is partially aligned with instructions.
3. **Good**: Generally accurate but may contain minor errors or slight deviations.
4. **Very Good**: Near perfect, with minor issues in terms of alignment or confidence.
5, **Excellent**: Accurate, confident, aligned with instructions, and free of hallucinations.

## Format:

### Input
Instruction: [Clearly specify the task goal and restrictions]

Texts:
<text 1> [Text 1]
<text 2> [Text 2]

### Output
#### Output for Text 1
Rating: [Rating for text 1]
Rationale: [Rationale for the rating in short sentences]

#### Output for Text 2
Rating: [Rating]
Rationale: [Rationale]

---

## Annotation

### Input
Instruction: Evaluate the logical validity of the argument: "If a number is even, then it is divisible by 2. Number 6 is even. Therefore, number 6 is divisible by 2."

Texts:
<text 1> The argument can be analyzed using logical reasoning. 

1. The first statement is a conditional statement: "If a number is even, then it is divisible by 2." We can symbolize this as:
   - Let \( P \): "A number is even."
   - Let \( Q \): "A number is divisible by 2."
   - The statement can be written as \( P \rightarrow Q \).

2. The second statement affirms the antecedent of the conditional: "Number 6 is even." This can be represented as:
   - \( P \) is true for the specific case (number 6
<text 2> The argument presented is logically valid. It follows the logical structure known as modus ponens, which can be summarized as follows:

1. If \( P \), then \( Q \).
2. \( P \) is true.
3. Therefore, \( Q \) is true.

In this case:

1. If a number is even, then it is divisible by 2. (If \( P \), then \( Q \).)
2. 6 is an even number. (\( P \) is true.)
3. Therefore, 6 is divisible by 2. (Therefore, \( Q \) is true.)



### Output

user
#### Output for Text 1
Rating: 3
Rationale: This text correctly interprets the logical argument through symbolic logic, highlighting the premises and attempting to use logical symbols. However, it is incomplete, stopping mid-sentence and not providing a conclusion or final analysis. Despite some accurate steps, its informativeness is compromised by the abrupt cutoff and lack of a resolution, which affects correctness. There are no indications of hallucination or dishonesty.

#### Output for Text 2
Rating: 5
Rationale: The second text presents a clear, concise, and accurate explanation of the logical structure of the argument using modus pon
This text correctly interprets the logical argument through symbolic logic, highlighting the premises and attempting to use logical symbols. However, it is incomplete, stopping mid-sentence and not providing a conclusion or final analysis. Despite some accurate steps, its informativeness is compromised by the abrupt cutoff and lack of a resolution, which affects correctness. There are no indications of hallucination or dishonesty. The second text presents a clear, concise, and accurate explanation of the logical structure of the argument using modus pon