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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore laura's car was found with a slashed tire.
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
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 witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore laura's car was found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not happy, since if the dog is happy then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.
|
If the dog is happy then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
The dog is not happy
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is happy
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
The dog is not happy
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not happy, since if the dog is happy then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.```<|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 black, as if the cat is black then the cat is eating food and the cat is not eating food.
|
If the cat is black then the cat is eating food
|
The cat is not eating food
|
The cat is not black
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is black
|
The cat is eating food
|
The cat is not black
|
The cat is not eating food
| 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 black, as if the cat is black then the cat is eating food and the cat is not eating food.```<|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 a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which shows that a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which shows that 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 richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, hence richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.
|
If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the bird is singing
|
The bird is not singing
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
modus tollen
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
The bird is singing
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
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 richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, hence richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, since if the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, since if the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which shows that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
modus tollen
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which shows that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, so no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the book is written by a famous author
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
modus tollen
|
A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
The book is not written by a famous author
| 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 the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, so no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|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, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, which implies that a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.
|
If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, which implies that a 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|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, which implies that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the book is on the table
|
The book is not on the table
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
|
modus tollen
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
The book is on the table
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
|
The book is not on the table
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, which implies that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the cat is purring contentedly, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so it can be concluded that the cat is purring contentedly.
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the cat is purring contentedly
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
| 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 making anonymous threats to the victim then the cat is purring contentedly, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so it can be concluded that the cat is purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, so it can be concluded that the car is not a hybrid.
|
If the car is a hybrid then the suspect's name is john davis
|
The suspect's name is not john davis
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
modus tollen
|
The car is a hybrid
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
The suspect's name is not 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 car is a hybrid then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, so it can be concluded that the car is not a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, so it can be concluded that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.
|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
| 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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, so it can be concluded that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen
|
Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which implies that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
modus ponen
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which implies that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, therefore the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
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 homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, therefore the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against 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 a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, therefore no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
modus tollen
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, therefore 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|>
|
Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, since if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
|
Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
|
modus tollen
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
|
Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, since if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for 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 laura had a secret storage room in her house then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, which establishes that emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, which establishes that emily's social media posts hinted 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 dog is barking at the television, because if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the dog is barking at the television and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.
|
If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the dog is barking at the television
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
The dog is barking at the television
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
The dog is barking at the television
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
The dog is not barking at the television
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the television, because if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the dog is barking at the television and a forensic expert found 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 laura had installed a home security system then laura's passport is missing, and laura had installed a home security system, which shows that laura's passport is missing.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then laura's passport is missing
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
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 laura had installed a home security system then laura's passport is missing, and laura had installed a home security system, which shows that laura's passport 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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the apple is red, and the apple is not red, hence laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the apple is red
|
The apple is not red
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
The apple is red
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
The apple is not red
| 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 car was found with a slashed tire then the apple is red, and the apple is not red, hence laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.```<|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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the sun is shining through the window
|
The sun is not shining through the window
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
|
modus tollen
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
The sun is shining through the window
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
|
The sun is not shining through the window
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, as if laura's prescription medications were stolen then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and laura's prescription medications were stolen.
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, as if laura's prescription medications were stolen then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and laura's prescription medications were stolen.```<|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 nightstand then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, which establishes that the book is not on the nightstand.
|
If the book is on the nightstand then the sun is setting slowly
|
The sun is not setting slowly
|
The book is not on the nightstand
|
modus tollen
|
The book is on the nightstand
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
The book is not on the nightstand
|
The sun is not setting slowly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, which establishes that the book is not on the nightstand.```<|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 ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
|
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: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not exciting, since if the movie is exciting then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.
|
If the movie is exciting then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The movie is not exciting
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is exciting
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The movie is not exciting
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not exciting, since if the movie is exciting then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|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 crawling then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and the baby is crawling, therefore detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement.
|
If the baby is crawling then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
The baby is crawling
|
Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling
|
Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
The baby is not crawling
|
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 the baby is crawling then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and the baby is crawling, therefore detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's 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 stolen van was registered in a fake name then the movie is a horror film, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which implies that the movie is a horror film.
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the movie is a horror film
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The movie is a horror film
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The movie is a horror film
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
The movie is not a horror film
| 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 movie is a horror film, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which implies that the movie is a horror film.```<|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 mild and pleasant then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and the weather is mild and pleasant, which shows that john davis had a history of anger management issues.
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then john davis had a history of anger management issues
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
The weather is not mild and pleasant
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management 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 weather is mild and pleasant then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and the weather is mild and pleasant, which shows that 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|>
|
John davis had a secret storage unit, because if laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then john davis had a secret storage unit and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then john davis had a secret storage unit
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a secret storage unit, because if laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then john davis had a secret storage unit and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, so no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the phone is ringing
|
The phone is not ringing
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
The phone is ringing
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
The phone is not ringing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, so no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home 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 a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
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 a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that laura martinez had 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 cat is purring contentedly, because if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the cat is purring contentedly and a 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
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
| 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 purring contentedly, because if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the cat is purring contentedly and a 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 john davis had a history of substance abuse then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is not barking at the squirrel, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.
|
If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the dog is barking at the squirrel
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of substance abuse
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is not barking at the squirrel, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The phone is ringing, as if emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the phone is ringing and emily had recently taken a self-defense course.
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the phone is ringing
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
The phone is ringing
|
modus ponen
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
The phone is ringing
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
The phone is not ringing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The phone is ringing, as if emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the phone is ringing and emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If cats are mammals then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, so it can be concluded that cats are not mammals.
|
If cats are mammals then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
|
Cats are not mammals
|
modus tollen
|
Cats are mammals
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
Cats are not mammals
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If cats are mammals then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, so it can be concluded that cats are not mammals.```<|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 delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, therefore a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
|
No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
modus tollen
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, therefore a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky, as if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the murder weapon was a baseball bat.
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is setting slowly in the sky, as if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror.
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
| 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 in front of the mirror then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the sky is blue, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, so it can be concluded that the sky is blue.
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the sky is blue
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The sky is blue
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The sky is blue
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The sky is not blue
| 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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the sky is blue, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, so it can be concluded that the sky is blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, because if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, because if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace and laura's work computer had 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|>
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
| 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 caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 brightly in the sky then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, which implies that the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
| 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 laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, which implies that 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 laura's dog was found locked in a closet then dogs are not fish, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so it can be concluded that dogs are not fish.
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then dogs are not fish
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
Dogs are not fish
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
Dogs are not fish
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
|
Dogs are fish
| 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 dog was found locked in a closet then dogs are not fish, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so it can be concluded that dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, because if john davis had a secret storage unit then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and john davis had a secret storage unit.
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
John davis had a secret storage unit
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, because if john davis had a secret storage unit then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and john davis had a secret storage unit.```<|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 cellar was discovered under laura's house then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect, so it can be concluded that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match 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 hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect, so it can be concluded that no hidden cellar was discovered under 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 the pizza is hot then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the pizza is hot, hence the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.
|
If the pizza is hot then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
The pizza is hot
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
modus ponen
|
The pizza is hot
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
The pizza is not hot
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the pizza is hot, hence the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, thus no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then john davis had a history of anger management issues
|
John davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
modus tollen
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, thus no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, so the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
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 victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, so the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against 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 a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, therefore a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
A neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, therefore a jeweler's toolset was not missing from 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which establishes that officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
|
modus tollen
|
Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which establishes that officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|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 financial problems then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, which shows that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of financial problems
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
| 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 financial problems then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, which shows that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|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 social media accounts were hacked then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, which establishes that laura's social media accounts were not hacked.
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, which establishes that laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, therefore a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the movie is a comedy
|
The movie is not a comedy
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
The movie is a comedy
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
The movie is not a comedy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, therefore a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the movie is a comedy, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, therefore the movie is a comedy.
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the movie is a comedy
|
John davis had a history of stalking laura
|
The movie is a comedy
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
The movie is a comedy
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
|
The movie is not a comedy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the movie is a comedy, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, therefore the movie is a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which establishes that a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which establishes that a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the book is a romance novel, and the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, therefore the book is a romance novel.
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the book is a romance novel
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
The book is a romance novel
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
The book is a romance novel
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
The book is not a romance novel
| 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 in front of the mirror then the book is a romance novel, and the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, therefore the book is a romance novel.```<|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 gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, thus a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then john davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
John davis had not recently purchased a firearm
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
|
modus tollen
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
John Davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
|
John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, thus a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily'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|>
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, since if the movie is a family film then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house and the movie is a family film.
|
If the movie is a family film then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
The movie is a family film
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a family film
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
The movie is not a family film
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, since if the movie is a family film then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house and the movie is a family film.```<|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 eating food then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which implies that the cat is not eating food.
|
If the cat is eating food then the baby is crawling
|
The baby is not crawling
|
The cat is not eating food
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is eating food
|
The baby is crawling
|
The cat is not eating food
|
The baby is not crawling
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which implies that the cat is not eating food.```<|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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's wedding ring is missing, so it can be concluded that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's wedding ring is missing, so it can be concluded that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
| 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 mailman then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.```<|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 gas leak was detected in the basement then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, so the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
modus ponen
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, so the victim's will had been recently 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 the dog is barking at the door then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, thus the dog is not barking at the door.
|
If the dog is barking at the door then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, thus the dog is not barking at the 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 detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which shows that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which shows that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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|>
|
John davis had a history of stalking laura, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then john davis had a history of stalking laura and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then john davis had a history of stalking laura
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of stalking laura, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then john davis had a history of stalking laura and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.```<|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 detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, thus laura's garage door was not left open.
|
If laura's garage door was left open then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
| 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 detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, thus 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 the tree is shedding leaves then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, which establishes that the tree is not shedding leaves.
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
modus tollen
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, which establishes that the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, because if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.
|
If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, because if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's 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 the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, which shows that the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, which shows that the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene 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 suspect had a history of mental health issues then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, so the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
| 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 mental health issues then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, so the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.```<|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 musical film then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and the movie is a musical film, which shows that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.
|
If the movie is a musical film then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
|
The movie is a musical film
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a musical film
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from 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 movie is a musical film then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and the movie is a musical film, which shows that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|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 their locks due to security concerns, since if the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and the baby is crawling towards the cat.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
| 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 their locks due to security concerns, since if the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and the baby is crawling towards the cat.```<|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 had a cache of illegal firearms, as if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
modus ponen
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a cache of illegal firearms, as if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, so it can be concluded that the sun is setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
modus ponen
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, so it can be concluded that the sun is setting slowly 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 the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus the eiffel tower is in paris.
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the eiffel tower is in paris
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
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 victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus 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 baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, thus laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, thus laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman, because if the dog is barking at the mailman then the cat is sleeping soundly and the cat is not sleeping soundly.
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the cat is sleeping soundly
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the mailman, because if the dog is barking at the mailman then the cat is sleeping soundly and the cat is not sleeping soundly.```<|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 therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, hence sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
| 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 therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, hence sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of 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 sun is shining brightly then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, hence the sun is not shining brightly.
|
If the sun is shining brightly then a broken chair was found in the kitchen
|
A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
A broken chair was found in the kitchen
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
| 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 then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, hence the sun is not shining brightly.```<|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 door then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and the dog is barking at the door, which implies that laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.
|
If the dog is barking at the door then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and the dog is barking at the door, which implies that laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, so it can be concluded that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the dog is barking loudly
|
The dog is not barking loudly
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
The dog is not barking loudly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, so it can be concluded that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, as if the baby is teething on a toy then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction and the baby is teething on a toy.
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, as if the baby is teething on a toy then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction 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 the dog is barking at the neighbors then the book is a memoir, and the book is not a memoir, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the neighbors.
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then the book is a memoir
|
The book is not a memoir
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The book is a memoir
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
The book is not a memoir
| 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 neighbors then the book is a memoir, and the book is not a memoir, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is hot and humid then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and the weather is hot and humid, thus emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.
|
If the weather is hot and humid then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
The weather is not hot and humid
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is hot and humid then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and the weather is hot and humid, thus emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, which shows that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, which shows that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|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 in possession of laura's personal documents, as if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene.
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
|
Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
modus ponen
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
|
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: ```John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, as if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and footprints matching john's shoes were found near 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 water is warm then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, hence the water is not warm.
|
If the water is warm then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
|
Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
|
The water is not warm
|
modus tollen
|
The water is warm
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
The water is not warm
|
Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the water is warm then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, hence the water is not 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 john davis had bruises on his arms then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, therefore john davis did not have bruises on his arms.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
| 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 bruises on his arms then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, therefore john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|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 movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, therefore laura's jewelry box was not emptied.
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the movie is a sports film
|
The movie is not a sports film
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The movie is a sports film
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
The movie is not a sports film
| 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 movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, therefore 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 victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, as if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
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: ```The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, as if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|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 laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, which shows that a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
|
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 the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, which shows that 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|>
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily
|
A witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
modus ponen
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
| 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 sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of 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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, therefore laura's jewelry box was not emptied.
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
| 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 emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, therefore 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|>
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement, since if the baby is laughing at the toy then a gas leak was detected in the basement and the baby is laughing at the toy.
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then a gas leak was detected in the basement
|
The baby is laughing at the toy
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is laughing at the toy
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
|
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: ```A gas leak was detected in the basement, since if the baby is laughing at the toy then a gas leak was detected in the basement and the baby is laughing at the 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 detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, thus a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, thus a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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, therefore laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
|
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: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john 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, therefore laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.```<|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.