System: You are a helpful and precise assistant in checking the quality of the answer.
User: We would like to request your feedback on the performance of the response of the assistant to the user instruction displayed below. In the feedback, I want you to rate the quality of the response in these 3 categories according to each scoring rubric:

Logical Robustness: Does the model ensure general applicability and avoid logical contradictions in its reasoning steps for an instruction that requires step-by-step logical process? This includes the consideration of edge cases for coding and mathematical problems, and the absence of any counterexamples.
Score 1: The logic of the model's response is completely incoherent.
Score 2: The model's response contains major logical inconsistencies or errors.
Score 3: The model's response contains some logical inconsistencies or errors, but they are not significant.
Score 4: The model's response is logically sound, but it does not consider some edge cases.
Score 5: The model's response is logically flawless and it takes into account all potential edge cases.
Commonsense Understanding: Is the model accurately interpreting world concepts for instructions that require a simulation of the expected result or necessitate commonsense or spatial reasoning?
Score 1: The model completely misinterprets world concepts or misunderstands commonsense knowledge.
Score 2: The model misinterprets crucial world concepts, potentially leading to misinformation.
Score 3: The model shows a few errors in its understanding of world concepts.
Score 4: A single, minor error exists in the model's comprehension of world concepts.
Score 5: The model accurately interprets world concepts without any errors.
Readability: Is the response structured to promote readability and coherence? Does the response exhibit excellent organization?
Score 1: The response is completely unclear, making comprehension difficult.
Score 2: The response has significant areas of ambiguity or disorganization, critically affecting reader comprehension.
Score 3: The response contains some unclear components, or its organization could be improved.
Score 4: The response is generally understandable but could be further optimized for readability.
Score 5: The response is clear and well-organized, enabling the reader to effortlessly follow the content.
[Instruction]
It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, Lesley is a close friend of Fernando. Moreover, being a close friend of Fernando or a schoolmate of Lowell is sufficient for being a great-grandfather of Leroy. It follows that Lesley is a great-grandfather of Leroy." Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?

[Ground truth Answer]
Let's think step by step.
(1) Lesley is a close friend of Fernando: Lesley = friend(Fernando).
(2) Being a close friend of Fernando or a schoolmate of Lowell is sufficient for being a great-grandfather of Leroy: If X = friend(Fernando) OR SCHOOLMATE(Lowell), then X = great-grandfather(Leroy).
Hypothesis: Does it follow that Lesley is a great-grandfather of Leroy: Lesley = great-grandfather(Leroy)?
Let’s see whether the Hypothesis can be deduced from the arguments (1) and (2) by logical reasoning?
By (1), we have Lesley = friend(Fernando). By (2), we have if Lesley = friend(Fernando), then Lesley = great-grandfather(Leroy).
So, it is true that Lesley is a great-grandfather of Leroy. So the answer is valid.

[Assistant's Response]
The argument presented is deductively invalid. To understand why, we need to analyze the premises and the conclusion carefully.

1. **Premise 1**: Lesley is a close friend of Fernando.
2. **Premise 2**: Being a close friend of Fernando or a schoolmate of Lowell is sufficient for being a great-grandfather of Leroy.

From these premises, the conclusion drawn is that "Lesley is a great-grandfather of Leroy." However, the logical structure does not support this conclusion.

The key issue lies in the interpretation of the premises. While it is stated that being a close friend of Fernando or a schoolmate of Lowell is sufficient for being a great-grandfather of Leroy, it does not mean that all close friends of Fernando are great-grandfathers of Leroy. There could be many close friends of Fernando who are not great-grandfathers. The premises do not establish a direct link between Lesley's friendship with Fernando and the status of being Leroy's great-grandfather.

In logical terms, the argument commits the fallacy of affirming the disjunct. Just because Lesley meets one of the sufficient conditions (being a close friend of Fernando), it does not follow that Lesley must fulfill the conclusion (being a great-grandfather of Leroy).

Therefore, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, making the argument invalid.

[The End of Assistant's Response]

Please give feedback on the assistant's responses. Also, provide the assistant with a score on a scale of 1 to 5 for each category, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Make sure to give feedback or comments for each category first and then write the score for each category. Only write the feedback corresponding to the scoring rubric for each category. The scores of each category should be orthogonal, indicating that 'Efficiency of User Alignment' should not be considered for 'Readability of User Alignment' category, for example. 

Lastly, return a Python dictionary object that has skillset names as keys and the corresponding scores as values.

[System]



Assistant: