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 a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, so it can be concluded that a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
|
A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily'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 a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, so it can be concluded that a missing security camera was found hidden in emily'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|>
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.
|
If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
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: ```A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|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 heard screams coming from laura's house then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously 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 a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that no witness heard screams coming from laura's 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 laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, hence a gas leak was detected in the basement.
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a gas leak was detected in the basement
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
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: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, hence a gas leak was 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|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, thus john davis had a history of psychiatric issues.
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
| 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 a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, thus john davis had a history of psychiatric issues.```<|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 substance abuse then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, hence a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.
|
If john davis had a history of substance abuse then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
John davis had a history of substance abuse
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of substance abuse
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
| 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 substance abuse then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, hence a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.```<|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 mail truck then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, which implies that the dog is not barking at the mail truck.
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then sally is older than john
|
Sally is not older than john
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
Sally is older than John
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
Sally is not older than John
| 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 mail truck then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, which implies that the dog is not barking at the mail truck.```<|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 weather is cold and snowy then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, which shows that the weather is not cold and snowy.
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, which shows that the weather is not cold and snowy.```<|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 ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, therefore emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
| 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 ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, therefore emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, hence a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, hence a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.```<|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 was not in possession of laura's personal documents, because if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then laura's mail was tampered with and laura's mail was not tampered with.
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then laura's mail was tampered with
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
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 was not in possession of laura's personal documents, because if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents 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 laura's wedding ring is missing then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's wedding ring is missing, so laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
| 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 wedding ring is missing then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's wedding ring is missing, so laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|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 family reported receiving anonymous threats then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which shows that a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing 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 laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which shows that a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing 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 the movie is a comedy-drama then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, which shows that the movie is not a comedy-drama.
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then officer brown discovered a hidden basement
|
Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
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 the movie is a comedy-drama then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, which shows that the movie is not a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, thus the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear 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: ```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, thus the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear 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|>
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, because if the weather is nice then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the weather is nice.
|
If the weather is nice then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The weather is nice
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is nice
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The weather is not nice
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
| 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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, because if the weather is nice then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and 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|>
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, since if john davis had a history of anger management issues then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and john davis had a history of anger management issues.
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
John davis had a history of anger management issues
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
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: ```A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, since if john davis had a history of anger management issues then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|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 claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
A stolen car was not reported 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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that a stolen car was reported 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 sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, so sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the dog is happy
|
The dog is not happy
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
The dog is happy
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
The dog is not happy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, so sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before 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 remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, which implies that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.
|
If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then paris is in france
|
Paris is not in france
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
modus tollen
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
Paris is in France
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
Paris is not in France
| 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 remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, which implies that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|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 the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, thus the baby is not playing with a toy car.
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then the baby is crying in the stroller
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is playing with a toy car
|
The baby is crying in the stroller
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
| 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 the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, thus the baby is not playing with a toy car.```<|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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
|
A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
modus ponen
|
A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|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 friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, so a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
| 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 friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, so a 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|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the bird is singing, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which implies that the bird is singing.
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the bird is singing
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The bird is singing
|
modus ponen
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The bird is singing
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The bird is not singing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the bird is singing, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which implies that 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 the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, which shows that 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 car is parked on the street
|
The car is not parked on the street
|
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 car is parked on the street
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
The car is not parked on the street
| 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 car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, which shows that 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 a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which implies that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which implies that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time 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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, thus laura's dog was found locked in a closet.
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, thus 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|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, which implies that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's pet cat is missing
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
Laura's pet cat 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: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, which implies that no stolen necklace was found in marcus'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|>
|
The car is not moving, since if the car is moving then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.
|
If the car is moving then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery
|
The security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
|
The car is not moving
|
modus tollen
|
The car is moving
|
The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery
|
The car is not moving
|
The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is not moving, since if the car is moving then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during 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|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which shows that the dog is barking at the dog next door.
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
modus ponen
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which shows that the dog is 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|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which establishes that a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone 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 a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which establishes that a forensic expert did not match 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 the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, therefore the victim's name is sarah mitchell.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the victim's name is sarah mitchell
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
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: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, therefore the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|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 had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
| 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 had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that no 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 sun is shining then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so the sun is not shining.
|
If the sun is shining then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The sun is not shining
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The sun is not shining
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so the sun is not shining.```<|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 martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, therefore laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis.
|
If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the baby is teething
|
The baby is not teething
|
Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis
|
modus tollen
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
The baby is teething
|
Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis
|
The baby is not teething
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, therefore laura martinez did not have a restraining order against 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|>
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, since if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking 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 documented history of stalking the victim, since if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|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 had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, which establishes that the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis
|
Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis
| 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 had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, which establishes that the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crying loudly, as if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the baby is crying loudly and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the baby is crying loudly
|
A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
|
The baby is crying loudly
|
modus ponen
|
A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
The baby is crying loudly
|
No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
The baby is not crying loudly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is crying loudly, as if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the baby is crying loudly and 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 the cat is grooming itself then the baby is teething on a toy, and the cat is grooming itself, which implies that the baby is teething on a toy.
|
If the cat is grooming itself then the baby is teething on a toy
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
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 cat is grooming itself then the baby is teething on a toy, and the cat is grooming itself, which implies that 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|>
|
The car is a sedan, since if the sun is shining through the window then the car is a sedan and the sun is shining through the window.
|
If the sun is shining through the window then the car is a sedan
|
The sun is shining through the window
|
The car is a sedan
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is shining through the window
|
The car is a sedan
|
The sun is not shining through the window
|
The car is not a sedan
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is a sedan, since if the sun is shining through the window then the car is a sedan and the sun is shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, as if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
|
No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death
|
A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
|
No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, as if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not eating food, as if the cat is eating food then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.
|
If the cat is eating food then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
|
The cat is not eating food
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is eating food
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
|
The cat is not eating food
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at 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: ```The cat is not eating food, as if the cat is eating food then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim'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|>
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, as if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
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: ```The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, as if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.```<|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 local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, which shows that the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
modus ponen
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
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 local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, which shows that the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.```<|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 claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which implies that emily does not claim 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 the cat is purring
|
The cat is not purring
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
The cat is purring
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
The cat is not purring
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which implies that emily does not claim 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 victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, therefore the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle
| 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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, therefore the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|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 footprint was found in the living room then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, thus a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
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 bloody footprint was found in the living room then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, thus 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which implies that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.
|
If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon 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 a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which implies that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim'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 the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, hence the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching 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 the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, hence the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
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: ```If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so a 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, hence a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing 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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, hence a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing 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 suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.
|
If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
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: ```The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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 leaving the scene in a hurry then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, thus no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
modus tollen
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
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: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, thus no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|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 captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, hence no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
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
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
| 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 captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, hence no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a 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 the baby is crying in the stroller then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that the baby is not crying in the stroller.
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crying in the stroller
|
Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
|
Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
| 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 stroller then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that the baby is not crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, as if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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: ```A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, as if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, therefore the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
| 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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, therefore the suspect's social media accounts did not contain 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|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker, so the book is not on the bestseller list.
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The book is not on the bestseller list
|
modus tollen
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The book is not on the bestseller list
|
The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
| 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 bestseller list then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker, so the book is not on the bestseller list.```<|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 a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, so officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
|
Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
|
modus tollen
|
Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
|
A stolen car was not reported 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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, so 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|>
|
If the book is a bestseller then it is raining today, and the book is a bestseller, which establishes that it is raining today.
|
If the book is a bestseller then it is raining today
|
The book is a bestseller
|
It is raining today
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a bestseller
|
It is raining today
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
It is not raining today
| 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 bestseller then it is raining today, and the book is a bestseller, which establishes that it is raining today.```<|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 the water is warm, and the movie is a comedy, which shows that the water is warm.
|
If the movie is a comedy then the water is warm
|
The movie is a comedy
|
The water is warm
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a comedy
|
The water is warm
|
The movie is not a comedy
|
The water is not warm
| 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 the water is warm, and the movie is a comedy, which shows that the water is warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then laura's wedding ring is missing, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, which establishes that laura's wedding ring is missing.
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
modus ponen
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
Laura's wedding ring 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: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then laura's wedding ring is missing, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, which establishes that laura's wedding ring is 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 the baby is playing with blocks then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the baby is playing with blocks, hence the victim's name is sarah mitchell.
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then the victim's name is sarah mitchell
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
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: ```If the baby is playing with blocks then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the baby is playing with blocks, hence the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|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 movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which implies 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 movie is a comedy-drama
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
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 movie is a comedy-drama
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
| 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 movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which implies 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|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, thus a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
The suspect's name is john davis
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
A stolen car was not reported 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 suspect's name is john davis then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and the suspect's name is john davis, thus a stolen car was reported 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 the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the baby is teething, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, so the baby is teething.
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the baby is teething
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The baby is teething
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The baby is teething
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
The baby is not teething
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the baby is teething, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, so the baby is teething.```<|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, since if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
| 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, since if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|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 stolen van was registered in a fake name then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, thus the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
modus tollen
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching 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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, thus the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.```<|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 captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the sun is setting, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so the sun is setting.
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the sun is setting
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
The sun is setting
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
The sun is setting
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
The sun is not setting
| 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 captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the sun is setting, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so the sun is setting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, as if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
|
A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, as if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|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 diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, therefore the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then laura's passport is missing
|
Laura's passport is not missing
|
The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
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: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, therefore the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear 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 had a secret storage unit then the car is moving, and john davis had a secret storage unit, which establishes that the car is moving.
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the car is moving
|
John davis had a secret storage unit
|
The car is moving
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
The car is moving
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
The car is not moving
| 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 secret storage unit then the car is moving, and john davis had a secret storage unit, which establishes that the car is moving.```<|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 phone is ringing then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the cat is not sleeping in the sun, so it can be concluded that the phone is not ringing.
|
If the phone is ringing then the cat is sleeping in the sun
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
|
The phone is not ringing
|
modus tollen
|
The phone is ringing
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
The phone is not ringing
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the cat is not sleeping in the sun, so it can be concluded that the phone is not ringing.```<|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 van was not registered in a fake name, because if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
modus tollen
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen van was not registered in a fake name, because if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, therefore detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
modus ponen
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, therefore detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, therefore a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.
|
If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
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: ```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, therefore a 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|>
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, as if the baby is teething on a toy then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the baby is teething on a toy.
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
| 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 recently changed the locks on their doors, as if the baby is teething on a toy then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and 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 a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the weather is cold and rainy, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which shows that the weather is cold and rainy.
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the weather is cold and rainy
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
modus ponen
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
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 a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the weather is cold and rainy, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which shows that the weather is cold and rainy.```<|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 silver revolver found in a storm drain then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the eiffel tower is in paris
|
The eiffel tower is not in paris
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
modus tollen
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
| 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 silver revolver found in a storm drain then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|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 hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, hence the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
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 victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, hence the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|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 happy then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which implies that the dog is not happy.
|
If the dog is happy then emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
The dog is not happy
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is happy
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
The dog is not happy
|
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: ```If the dog is happy then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which implies that the dog is not happy.```<|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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, so emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
| 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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, so emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|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 the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle
|
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 the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.```<|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 grooming itself then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the cat is grooming itself, therefore the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.
|
If the cat is grooming itself then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
| 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 grooming itself then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the cat is grooming itself, therefore the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|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 corroborated by several witnesses, as if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
|
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: ```The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, as if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.```<|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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, therefore a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
| 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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, therefore a neighbor's security camera footage does not show 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|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, therefore the weather is not cloudy and rainy.
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the car is parked in the garage
|
The car is not parked in the garage
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
|
The car is not parked in the garage
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, therefore the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|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 grooming itself then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the cat is grooming itself, therefore the eiffel tower is in paris.
|
If the cat is grooming itself then the eiffel tower is in paris
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
| 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 grooming itself then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the cat is grooming itself, therefore the eiffel tower is in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the baby is playing with blocks, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, which establishes that the baby is playing with blocks.
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the baby is playing with blocks
|
Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the baby is playing with blocks, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, which establishes that the baby is playing with blocks.```<|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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
|
The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
| 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during 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|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, which shows that a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
modus tollen
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, which shows that a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.```<|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 no history of using aliases and false identities, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
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: ```The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and a stolen car was not 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 laura's mail was tampered with then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, which implies that laura's mail was not tampered with.
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
| 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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, which implies that 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 the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then cats are mammals, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, thus cats are mammals.
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then cats are mammals
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
Cats are mammals
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
Cats are mammals
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
Cats are not mammals
| 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 cats are mammals, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, thus cats are mammals.```<|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 fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then it is raining today and it is not raining today.
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then it is raining today
|
It is not raining today
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
It is raining today
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
It is not raining today
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then it is raining today and it is not raining today.```<|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 jewelry box was emptied then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, which implies that laura's jewelry box was not emptied.
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed 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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, which implies that laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is not a hybrid, as if the car is a hybrid then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.
|
If the car is a hybrid then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
modus tollen
|
The car is a hybrid
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is not a hybrid, as if the car is a hybrid then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|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 the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which establishes that laura's garage door was not left open.
|
If laura's garage door was left open then the baby is laughing at the toy
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
The baby is laughing at the toy
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
| 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 the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which establishes that laura's garage door was not left open.```<|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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, therefore the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
| 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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, therefore the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.```<|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 smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the baby is playing with toys, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that the baby is playing with toys.
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the baby is playing with toys
|
Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
|
The baby is not playing with toys
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the baby is playing with toys, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that the baby is playing with toys.```<|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.