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 detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, therefore detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, therefore detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which implies that 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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
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
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
| 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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which implies that richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which shows that laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
modus ponen
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which shows that 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 the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, which shows that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, which shows that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, therefore no bloody footprint was found in the living room.
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then laura had recently changed her social media passwords
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, therefore no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and the book is a mystery novel, which establishes that john davis has a history of violent behavior.
|
If the book is a mystery novel then john davis has a history of violent behavior
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
The book is not a mystery novel
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a mystery novel then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and the book is a mystery novel, which establishes that john davis has a history of violent behavior.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, therefore a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, therefore a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so it can be concluded that john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
|
The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so it can be concluded that john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the book is a mystery novel, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, so it can be concluded that the book is a mystery novel.
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the book is a mystery novel
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The book is not a mystery 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 murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the book is a mystery novel, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, so it can be concluded that the book is a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, as if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the dog is happy and the dog is not happy.
|
If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the dog is happy
|
The dog is not happy
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
The dog is happy
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
The dog is not happy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, as if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the dog is happy and the dog is not happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, which shows that a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
|
modus tollen
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
|
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 a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, which shows that a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the book is on the bestseller list, so it can be concluded that officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
modus ponen
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
The book is not on the bestseller list
|
Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the book is on the bestseller list, so it can be concluded that 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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day 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|>
|
Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, since if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
|
No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
|
Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, since if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore john davis has a history of violent behavior.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then john davis has a history of violent behavior
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
| 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 john davis has a history of violent behavior, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore john davis has a history of violent behavior.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, therefore no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the baby is crying
|
The baby is not crying
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
The baby is crying
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
The baby is not crying
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, therefore no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, which implies that the movie is not a musical film.
|
If the movie is a musical film then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a musical film
|
The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, which implies that the movie is not a musical 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 a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
modus tollen
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
| 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 text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, which shows that the bird is not singing.
|
If the bird is singing then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
The bird is not singing
|
modus tollen
|
The bird is singing
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
The bird is not singing
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her 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 bird is singing then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, which shows that the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining 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, therefore the sun is not shining.
|
If the sun is shining 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 sun is not shining
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
The sun is not shining
|
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 sun is shining 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, therefore the sun is not shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which shows that a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which shows that a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, as if the book is a mystery novel then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office and the book is a mystery novel.
|
If the book is a mystery novel then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The book is not a mystery novel
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, as if the book is a mystery novel then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office and the book is a mystery 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 surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the bird is singing, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so the bird is singing.
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the bird is singing
|
Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
|
The bird is singing
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
|
The bird is singing
|
Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
|
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 surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the bird is singing, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so the bird is singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, as if the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
|
The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
modus ponen
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, as if the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so it can be concluded that laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
modus ponen
|
The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so it can be concluded that 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 laura had installed a home security system then the water is warm, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that the water is warm.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then the water is warm
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
The water is warm
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
The water is warm
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
The water is not warm
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then the water is warm, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that the water is warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, hence the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, hence the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, which shows that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
modus tollen
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, which shows that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards the door.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then the weather is hot and humid
|
The weather is not hot and humid
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crawling towards the door
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door
|
The weather is not hot and humid
| 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 towards the door then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards 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 the cat is sleeping soundly 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, so the cat is not sleeping soundly.
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly 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 cat is not sleeping soundly
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
|
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 cat is sleeping soundly 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, so 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|>
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, as if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table.
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the book is on the table
|
The book is not on the table
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The book is on the table
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
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: ```Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, as if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, since if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the computer is on and the computer is not on.
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the computer is on
|
The computer is not on
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
modus tollen
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The computer is on
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The computer is not on
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, since if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the computer is on and the computer is not on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, since if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near 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: ```A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, since if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, hence emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, hence emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, thus no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, thus no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which implies that john davis did not have a history of anger management issues.
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
| 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 anger management issues then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which implies that john davis did not have a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, thus the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near 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 the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, thus the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not on the table, as if the book is on the table then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.
|
If the book is on the table then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
The book is not on the table
|
modus tollen
|
The book is on the table
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
The book is not on the table
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the table, as if the book is on the table then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.
|
If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the dog is barking at the mailman
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
| 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 alibi is he was at work during the incident then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and laura's wedding ring is missing, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home.
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and laura's wedding ring is missing, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was 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 a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, hence sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
modus ponen
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
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: ```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, hence sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which establishes that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently
| 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 footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which establishes that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, which implies that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura had recently changed her social media passwords
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
modus tollen
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, which implies that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, since if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, since if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number 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|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and the book is written by a famous author, so a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
modus ponen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and the book is written by a famous author, so a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door, because if the dog is barking at the dog next door then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
| 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 dog next door, because if the dog is barking at the dog next door then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, therefore the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then sally is older than john
|
Sally is not older than john
|
The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
Sally is older than John
|
The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
Sally is not older than John
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, therefore the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
modus tollen
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
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 security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that no 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 laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
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 murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a comedy, as if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the movie is a comedy and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the movie is a comedy
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The movie is a comedy
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The movie is a comedy
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
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: ```The movie is a comedy, as if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the movie is a comedy and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The pizza is hot, as if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the pizza is hot and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the pizza is hot
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
The pizza is hot
|
modus ponen
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
The pizza is hot
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
The pizza is not hot
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The pizza is hot, as if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the pizza is hot and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|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 heard a gunshot then laura's passport is missing, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, thus laura's passport is missing.
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then laura's passport is missing
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
|
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 a neighbor heard a gunshot then laura's passport is missing, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, thus 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 the water is warm then the sun is setting slowly, and the water is warm, which implies that the sun is setting slowly.
|
If the water is warm then the sun is setting slowly
|
The water is warm
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
modus ponen
|
The water is warm
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
The water is not warm
|
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 water is warm then the sun is setting slowly, and the water is warm, which implies that the sun is setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the dog is barking at the neighbors, thus the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the neighbors then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the dog is barking at the neighbors, thus the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun, as if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the cat is sleeping in the sun and laura's social media accounts were hacked.
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the cat is sleeping in the sun
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is sleeping in the sun, as if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the cat is sleeping in the sun and laura's social media accounts were 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 the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, thus sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her 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 suspect had a history of violence against the victim then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, thus sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which shows that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
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 a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which shows that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is parked in the garage, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the car is parked in the garage and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the car is parked in the garage
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
|
The car is not parked in the garage
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is parked in the garage, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the car is parked in the garage and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, hence the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, hence the victim had no 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|>
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, as if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors.
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, as if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If cats are mammals then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and cats are mammals, thus the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.
|
If cats are mammals then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
Cats are mammals
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
modus ponen
|
Cats are mammals
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
Cats are not mammals
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If cats are mammals then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and cats are mammals, thus the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The eiffel tower is in paris, since if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the eiffel tower is in paris and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the eiffel tower is in paris
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
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: ```The eiffel tower is in paris, since if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the eiffel tower is in paris and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, thus john davis did not have a history of stalking laura.
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
| 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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, thus john davis did not have a history of stalking laura.```<|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 a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and cats are mammals, thus a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.
|
If cats are mammals then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
Cats are mammals
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
Cats are mammals
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
Cats are not mammals
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If cats are mammals then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and cats are mammals, thus a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which implies that footprints from muddy boots were found in the store.
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
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 victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which implies that footprints from muddy boots were found in the 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 the book is on the table then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the book is on the table, which implies that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.
|
If the book is on the table then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The book is on the table
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The book is on the table
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The book is not on the table
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the table then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the book is on the table, which implies that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and john davis had a history of financial problems, so laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
John davis had a history of financial problems
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of financial problems
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and john davis had a history of financial problems, so laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the movie is a family film, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, therefore the movie is a family film.
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the movie is a family film
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
|
The movie is a family film
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
The movie is a family film
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
The movie is not a family film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the movie is a family film, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, therefore 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 baby is crying then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, which shows that the baby is not crying.
|
If the baby is crying then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The baby is not crying
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crying
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The baby is not crying
|
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 the baby is crying then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, which shows that the baby is not crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, thus no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, thus no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the bird is singing, hence the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.
|
If the bird is singing then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
The bird is singing
|
The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
The bird is singing
|
The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
The bird is not singing
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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 bird is singing then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the bird is singing, hence the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, which implies that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, which implies that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that the dog is not barking at the squirrel.
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that the dog is not barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, so the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, so the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, since if a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
modus tollen
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, since if a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, therefore the baby is not teething.
|
If the baby is teething then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
The baby is not teething
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is teething
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
The baby is not teething
|
Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot 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 baby is teething then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, therefore the baby is not teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, therefore a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, therefore a security camera showed 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|>
|
A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, since if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and a 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 a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, since if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and a 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 emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
modus ponen
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
No witness heard screams coming from 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 the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The victim did not have a restraining order 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is playing with a toy car, as if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the baby is playing with a toy car and the stolen van was registered in a fake name.
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the baby is playing with a toy car
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The baby is playing with a toy car
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The baby is playing with a toy car
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is playing with a toy car, as if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the baby is playing with a toy car and the stolen van was registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's 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 victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining, since if the sun is shining 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.
|
If the sun is shining then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The sun is not shining
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The sun is not shining
|
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: ```The sun is not shining, since if the sun is shining 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.```<|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 laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, so the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
|
Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats
| 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 laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, so the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|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 suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, therefore the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, therefore the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the door then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and the dog is barking at the door, thus a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.
|
If the dog is barking at the door then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
| 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 a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and the dog is barking at the door, thus a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|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 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, which shows that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry 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
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
modus tollen
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
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 a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry 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, which shows that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, hence the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, hence the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's name is not laura martinez, since if the victim's name is laura martinez then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
The victim's name is not Laura Martinez
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
The victim's name is not Laura Martinez
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's name is not laura martinez, since if the victim's name is laura martinez then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the bird is singing, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which implies that the bird is singing.
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the bird is singing
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
The bird is singing
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
The bird is singing
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
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 the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the bird is singing, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which implies that the bird is singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the table then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, hence the book is not on the table.
|
If the book is on the table then laura's laptop was found smashed
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
The book is not on the table
|
modus tollen
|
The book is on the table
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
The book is not on the table
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the table then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, hence the book is not on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which establishes that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
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 laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which establishes that 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 the dog is barking then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking.
|
If the dog is barking then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
The dog is not barking
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
The dog is not barking
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry 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 dog is barking then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The suspect had no history of mental health 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 neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement and the baby is crawling towards the cat.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement 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|>
|
If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, hence detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.
|
If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
| 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 gambling debts and financial problems then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, hence detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.