Search is not available for this dataset
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.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If the dog is barking loudly then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which implies that the dog is not barking loudly.
|
If the dog is barking loudly then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
The dog is not barking loudly
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
The dog is not barking loudly
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking loudly then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which implies that the dog is not barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the table then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which establishes that the book is not on the table.
|
If the book is on the table then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
The book is not on the table
|
modus tollen
|
The book is on the table
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
The book is not on the table
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the table then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which establishes that the book is not on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and the victim's name is laura martinez, which implies that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The victim's name is laura martinez
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The victim's name is not Laura Martinez
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is laura martinez then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and the victim's name is laura martinez, which implies that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, as if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, as if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, hence the sun is shining brightly overhead.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the sun is shining brightly overhead
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, hence the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, so a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, so a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, therefore a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.
|
If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
|
A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, therefore a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so it can be concluded that no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the dog is barking at the mail truck
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so it can be concluded that no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the cat is sleeping on the couch and the cat is not sleeping on the couch.
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the cat is sleeping on the couch and the cat is not sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which shows that richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.
|
If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which shows that richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the dog next door.
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
|
John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the dog next door then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not written by a famous author, because if the book is written by a famous author then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a gas leak was not detected in the basement.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a gas leak was detected in the basement
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
modus tollen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not written by a famous author, because if the book is written by a famous author then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the stranger, as if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the dog is barking at the stranger and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the dog is barking at the stranger
|
Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
|
The dog is not barking at the stranger
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the stranger, as if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the dog is barking at the stranger and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the weather is cold and rainy
|
The weather is not cold and rainy
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The weather is not cold and rainy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, so it can be concluded that a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus tollen
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, so it can be concluded that a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is teething, thus the baby is drinking from a bottle.
|
If the baby is teething then the baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The baby is teething
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is teething
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The baby is not teething
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is teething, thus the baby is drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, so the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is playing with a toy car
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
The baby is playing with a toy car
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, so the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and laura's pet cat is missing, therefore a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and laura's pet cat is missing, therefore a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, hence the suspect's name is not john davis.
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, hence the suspect's name is not john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the book is a mystery novel, which shows that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.
|
If the book is a mystery novel then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The book is not a mystery novel
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a mystery novel then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the book is a mystery novel, which shows that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, because if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, because if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, so it can be concluded that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, so it can be concluded that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, since if the car is parked in the garage then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and the car is parked in the garage.
|
If the car is parked in the garage then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
modus ponen
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
The car is not parked in the garage
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, since if the car is parked in the garage then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and the car is parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked, because if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the sun is setting slowly and the sun is not setting slowly.
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the sun is setting slowly
|
The sun is not setting slowly
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
The sun is not setting slowly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's social media accounts were not hacked, because if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the sun is setting slowly and the sun is not setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's name is sarah mitchell, since if the car is a hybrid then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and the car is a hybrid.
|
If the car is a hybrid then the victim's name is sarah mitchell
|
The car is a hybrid
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
modus ponen
|
The car is a hybrid
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's name is sarah mitchell, since if the car is a hybrid then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim, as if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.
|
If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of violence against the victim, as if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the movie is a comedy, so it can be concluded that officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.
|
If the movie is a comedy then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The movie is a comedy
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a comedy
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The movie is not a comedy
|
Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the movie is a comedy, so it can be concluded that officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a science fiction film, since if the movie is a science fiction film then laura's laptop was found smashed and laura's laptop was not found smashed.
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then laura's laptop was found smashed
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
The movie is not a science fiction film
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
The movie is not a science fiction film
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a science fiction film, since if the movie is a science fiction film then laura's laptop was found smashed and laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, therefore the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, therefore the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, hence a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then officer brown discovered a hidden basement
|
Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus tollen
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, hence a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, since if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace and a shattered vase was found in the hallway.
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
modus ponen
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, since if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace and a shattered vase was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
modus tollen
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors.
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, since if the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
Richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, since if the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which implies that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which implies that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the movie is a documentary, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, thus the movie is a documentary.
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the movie is a documentary
|
John davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
The movie is a documentary
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
The movie is a documentary
|
John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm
|
The movie is not a documentary
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the movie is a documentary, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, thus the movie is a documentary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the weather is nice, and the weather is not nice, therefore john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the weather is nice
|
The weather is not nice
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The weather is nice
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The weather is not nice
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the weather is nice, and the weather is not nice, therefore john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the tree is shedding leaves, and the cat is purring contentedly, which shows that the tree is shedding leaves.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the tree is shedding leaves
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly then the tree is shedding leaves, and the cat is purring contentedly, which shows that the tree is shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, as if a neighbor heard a gunshot then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and a neighbor heard a gunshot.
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, as if a neighbor heard a gunshot then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and a neighbor heard a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, so a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the car is a hybrid
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door
|
The car is a hybrid
|
A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
|
The car is not a hybrid
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, so a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, which implies that no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, which implies that no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, hence a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, hence a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is exciting then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and the movie is exciting, which shows that laura's dog was found locked in a closet.
|
If the movie is exciting then laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
The movie is exciting
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is exciting
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
The movie is not exciting
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is exciting then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and the movie is exciting, which shows that laura's dog was found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, as if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, as if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, as if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
modus ponen
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, as if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that the book is not written by a famous author.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
modus tollen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and the baby is playing with a toy car, therefore emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The baby is playing with a toy car
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is playing with a toy car
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and the baby is playing with a toy car, therefore emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, since if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
modus tollen
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, since if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, therefore the victim's name is not laura martinez.
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
The victim's name is not Laura Martinez
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
The victim's name is not Laura Martinez
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is laura martinez then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, therefore the victim's name is not laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which establishes that the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which establishes that the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, which shows that a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.
|
If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
|
A broken window was found in laura's bedroom
|
A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
modus ponen
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, which shows that a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, thus emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, thus emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the suspect's name is john davis, therefore a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The suspect's name is john davis
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the suspect's name is john davis, therefore a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the baby is crying in the car, hence officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.
|
If the baby is crying in the car then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The baby is not crying in the car
|
Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the car then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the baby is crying in the car, hence officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, thus emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, thus emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and laura's garage door was left open, so it can be concluded that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.
|
If laura's garage door was left open then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and laura's garage door was left open, so it can be concluded that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the baby is teething on a toy, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, so the baby is teething on a toy.
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the baby is teething on a toy
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the baby is teething on a toy, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, so the baby is teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, hence john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, hence john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, thus laura's mail was not tampered with.
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's mail was tampered with then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, thus laura's mail was not tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, since if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, since if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura's social media accounts were hacked and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
modus ponen
|
A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's social media accounts were hacked, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura's social media accounts were hacked and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, because if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night and no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, because if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night and no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, since if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, since if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the dog is barking at the neighbors and the dog is not barking at the neighbors.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security camera captured the suspect entering the building, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the dog is barking at the neighbors and the dog is not barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, therefore the cat is not purring contentedly.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, therefore the cat is not purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, since if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.
|
If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, since if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and the computer is on, thus laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.
|
If the computer is on then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
The computer is on
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
modus ponen
|
The computer is on
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
The computer is not on
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and the computer is on, thus laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, which shows that the book is not written by a famous author.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
modus tollen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, which shows that the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, so a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
modus ponen
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, so a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's name is not sarah mitchell, since if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's name is not sarah mitchell, since if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, therefore a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the car is a hybrid
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The car is a hybrid
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
The car is not a hybrid
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, therefore a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the book is written by a famous author, therefore the dog is barking at the squirrel.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the dog is barking at the squirrel
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
modus ponen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the book is written by a famous author, therefore the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and the movie is a science fiction film, hence surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The movie is not a science fiction film
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a science fiction film then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and the movie is a science fiction film, hence surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, which implies that laura's passport is not missing.
|
If laura's passport is missing then laura's house was booby-trapped
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
|
Laura's passport is not missing
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
Laura's house was booby-trapped
|
Laura's passport is not missing
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, which implies that laura's passport is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, as if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, as if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, since if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, since if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the cat is purring loudly, so the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.
|
If the cat is purring loudly then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The cat is purring loudly
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is purring loudly
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The cat is not purring loudly
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the cat is purring loudly, so the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, because if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, because if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then laura's passport is missing and laura's passport is not missing.
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then laura's passport is missing
|
Laura's passport is not missing
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
Laura's passport is not missing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then laura's passport is missing and laura's passport is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
|
modus tollen
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which shows that officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crawling
|
The baby is not crawling
|
Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
|
modus tollen
|
Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement
|
The baby is crawling
|
Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
|
The baby is not crawling
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which shows that officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, as if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
|
A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, as if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the weather is nice, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, so it can be concluded that the weather is nice.
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the weather is nice
|
John davis had a history of stalking other women
|
The weather is nice
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
The weather is nice
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women
|
The weather is not nice
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the weather is nice, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, so it can be concluded that the weather is nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, because if john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then laura's mail was tampered with and laura's mail was not tampered with.
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then laura's mail was tampered with
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, because if john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then laura's mail was tampered with and laura's mail was not tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then water is h2o, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which shows that water is h2o.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then water is h2o
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
Water is H2O
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
Water is H2O
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
Water is not H2O
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then water is h2o, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which shows that water is h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which establishes that laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
modus ponen
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which establishes that laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, because if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then emily had recently taken a self-defense course and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course.
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
modus tollen
|
A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, because if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then emily had recently taken a self-defense course and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, hence a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, hence a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, because if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, because if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, hence the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, hence the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, because if the bird is singing then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon and the bird is singing.
|
If the bird is singing then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The bird is singing
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
modus ponen
|
The bird is singing
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The bird is not singing
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, because if the bird is singing then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon and the bird is singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, so the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, so the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.