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 laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, which shows that laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently.
|
If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the baby is crawling towards the toy
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, which shows that laura did not have 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 the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then cats are mammals, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, hence cats are mammals.
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then cats are mammals
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
Cats are mammals
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
Cats are mammals
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
|
Cats are not mammals
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then cats are mammals, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, hence cats are mammals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, since if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, since if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, thus the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, thus the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, hence the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
modus ponen
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, hence the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the car is parked on the street, and laura's laptop was found smashed, so the car is parked on the street.
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the car is parked on the street
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
The car is parked on the street
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
The car is parked on the street
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
The car is not parked on the street
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the car is parked on the street, and laura's laptop was found smashed, so the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which establishes that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
|
modus tollen
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which establishes that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have 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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which implies that 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 a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, which shows that a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, which shows that a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which shows that laura had not installed a home security system.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
|
Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing
| 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which shows that laura had not installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, hence laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
modus ponen
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, hence laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, which establishes that john davis had a history of anger management issues.
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then john davis had a history of anger management issues
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mail truck then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, which establishes that john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, because if a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the car is a hybrid and the car is not a hybrid.
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the car is a hybrid
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
|
modus tollen
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
The car is a hybrid
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
|
The car is not a hybrid
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, because if a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the car is a hybrid and the car is not a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, because if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
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: ```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, because if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and no 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|>
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, since if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, since if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, thus emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
|
Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
modus tollen
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, thus emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not happy, since if the dog is happy then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.
|
If the dog is happy then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
The dog is not happy
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is happy
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
The dog is not happy
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not happy, since if the dog is happy then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, as if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, as if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which establishes that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
| 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which establishes that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, which shows that a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the baby is crying in the stroller
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
modus tollen
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
The baby is crying in the stroller
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, which shows that a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, because if john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, because if john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that laura's laptop was not found smashed.
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street
|
The arson did not occur on elm street
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
The arson occurred on Elm Street
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
The arson did not occur on Elm Street
| 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 laptop was found smashed then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, hence the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
|
The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
|
The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
|
The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, hence the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine 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, hence a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine 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
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
modus tollen
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
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 threatening message was left on laura's answering machine 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, hence a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, as if the cat is grooming itself then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the cat is grooming itself.
|
If the cat is grooming itself then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
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: ```The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, as if the cat is grooming itself then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the cat is grooming itself.```<|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 life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which implies that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
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 victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which implies that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near 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|>
|
Laura's passport is not missing, as if laura's passport is missing then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir.
|
If laura's passport is missing then the book is a memoir
|
The book is not a memoir
|
Laura's passport is not missing
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
The book is a memoir
|
Laura's passport is not missing
|
The book is not a memoir
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's passport is not missing, as if laura's passport is missing then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and laura's passport is missing, so it can be concluded that a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.
|
If laura's passport is missing then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
Laura's passport is not missing
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and laura's passport is missing, so it can be concluded that a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, thus the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found 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 a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, thus the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, as if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
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 victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, as if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, because if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity 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: ```The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, because if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is happy then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and the dog is happy, so a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.
|
If the dog is happy then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
The dog is happy
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is happy
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
The dog is not happy
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is happy then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and the dog is happy, so a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, hence paris is not in france.
|
If paris is in france then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
Paris is not in France
|
modus tollen
|
Paris is in France
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
Paris is not in France
|
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 paris is in france then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, hence paris is not in france.```<|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 mail was tampered with, because if the sky is blue then laura's mail was tampered with and the sky is blue.
|
If the sky is blue then laura's mail was tampered with
|
The sky is blue
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
modus ponen
|
The sky is blue
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
The sky is not blue
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's mail was tampered with, because if the sky is blue then laura's mail was tampered with and the sky is blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, which establishes that a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, which establishes that a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously 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|>
|
A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, since if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the movie is a sports film and the movie is not a sports film.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the movie is a sports film
|
The movie is not a sports film
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
modus tollen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
The movie is a sports film
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
The movie is not a sports film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, since if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the movie is a sports film and the movie is not a sports film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy, since if the weather is cloudy and rainy then the book is a mystery novel and the book is not a mystery novel.
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the book is a mystery novel
|
The book is not a mystery novel
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
|
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: ```The weather is not cloudy and rainy, since if the weather is cloudy and rainy then the book is a mystery novel and the book is not 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 john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, thus john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the baby is crawling towards the door
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The baby is crawling towards the door
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, thus john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, which establishes that the cat is not grooming itself.
|
If the cat is grooming itself then the sun is shining brightly
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
The sun is not shining brightly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, which establishes that the cat is not grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, because if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.
|
If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
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: ```No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, because if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house and sarah's cat was not 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|>
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
|
The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is not a sedan, since if the car is a sedan then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly.
|
If the car is a sedan then the cat is purring loudly
|
The cat is not purring loudly
|
The car is not a sedan
|
modus tollen
|
The car is a sedan
|
The cat is purring loudly
|
The car is not a sedan
|
The cat is not purring loudly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is not a sedan, since if the car is a sedan then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which shows that john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
modus ponen
|
A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which shows that john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the cat is grooming itself, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, thus the cat is grooming itself.
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the cat is grooming itself
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The cat is not grooming itself
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the cat is grooming itself, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, thus the cat is grooming itself.```<|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 personal files were not deleted from her computer, since if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
|
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: ```Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer, since if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and no 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 the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, hence the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, hence the victim's social media accounts did not contain 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 a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, which implies that no broken window was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, which implies that no broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, because if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
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 victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, because if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and the movie is a comedy-drama, hence laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy-drama then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and the movie is a comedy-drama, hence laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
modus tollen
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crying.
|
If the baby is crying then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
The baby is not crying
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crying
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
The baby is not crying
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, so it can be concluded 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 the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which establishes that the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which establishes that the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, so it can be concluded that a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, so it can be concluded that a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the apple is red then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, so the apple is not red.
|
If the apple is red then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The apple is not red
|
modus tollen
|
The apple is red
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The apple is not red
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, so the apple is not red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, hence the car is not a sedan.
|
If the car is a sedan then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
The car is not a sedan
|
modus tollen
|
The car is a sedan
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The car is not a sedan
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, hence the car is not a sedan.```<|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 toys, because if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the baby is playing with toys and the victim's neighbors reported 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 baby is playing with toys
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The baby is not playing with toys
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is playing with toys, because if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the baby is playing with toys and the victim's neighbors reported 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|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, so laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, so laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the baby is sleeping, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, therefore the baby is sleeping.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the baby is sleeping
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The baby is sleeping
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The baby is sleeping
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The baby is not sleeping
| 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 baby is sleeping, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, therefore the baby is sleeping.```<|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 lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, hence the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.
|
If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, hence the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|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 shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, so it can be concluded that the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.
|
If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
modus ponen
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, so it can be concluded that the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, therefore the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, therefore the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which shows 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which shows 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|>
|
The book is not interesting, since if the book is interesting then the computer is on and the computer is not on.
|
If the book is interesting then the computer is on
|
The computer is not on
|
The book is not interesting
|
modus tollen
|
The book is interesting
|
The computer is on
|
The book is not interesting
|
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 book is not interesting, since if the book is interesting 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|>
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and laura's mail was tampered with, hence footprints from muddy boots were found in the store.
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
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 laura's mail was tampered with then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and laura's mail was tampered with, hence 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|>
|
The sun is not shining through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.
|
If the sun is shining through the window then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The sun is not shining through the window
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining through the window
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The sun is not shining through the window
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
| 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 through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|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 the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which implies that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then the suspect's name is john davis
|
The suspect's name is not john davis
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of financial problems
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which implies that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, therefore a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the weather is cold and snowy
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
modus tollen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, therefore a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain 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 footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene.
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
|
modus tollen
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
|
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 footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of violating restraining orders, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of violating restraining orders, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and emily's fingerprints were found on 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|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which implies that laura's laptop was not found smashed.
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which implies that laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, which establishes that a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, which establishes that a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|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 drama, as if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then the movie is a drama and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then the movie is a drama
|
A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
The movie is a drama
|
modus ponen
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
The movie is a drama
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
The movie is not a drama
| 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 drama, as if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then the movie is a drama and a 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|>
|
Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, since if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, since if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, since if john davis had a history of psychiatric issues 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.
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues 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
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
|
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: ```John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, since if john davis had a history of psychiatric issues 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|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 victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that the victim's name is laura martinez.
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the victim's name is laura martinez
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim's name is not Laura Martinez
| 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 victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, which implies that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
|
modus tollen
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, which implies that footprints from muddy boots were not 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 victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, so 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 laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, so 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|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, thus the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, thus the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, as if the cat is grooming itself then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and the cat is grooming itself.
|
If the cat is grooming itself then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, as if the cat is grooming itself then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and the cat is grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have bruises on his arms.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
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 john davis had bruises on his arms then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, which shows that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, which shows that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is parked in the garage, since if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the car is parked in the garage and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the car is parked in the garage
|
Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
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, since if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the car is parked in the garage and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, which implies that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.
|
If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then a neighbor heard a gunshot
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
| 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 a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, which implies that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that detective martin discovered 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 a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, therefore a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.
|
If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
| 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, therefore a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the dog is happy, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, so the dog is happy.
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the dog is happy
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The dog is happy
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The dog is happy
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The dog is not happy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the dog is happy, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, so the dog is happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the tree is shedding leaves and the tree is not shedding leaves.
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the tree is shedding leaves
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
|
modus tollen
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the tree is shedding leaves and the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying loudly then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the baby is crying loudly, thus the sun is shining brightly in the sky.
|
If the baby is crying loudly then the sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The baby is crying loudly
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crying loudly
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The baby is not crying loudly
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying loudly then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the baby is crying loudly, thus the sun is shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, which shows that the sun is shining brightly overhead.
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the sun is shining brightly overhead
|
A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
modus ponen
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, which shows that the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, as if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
|
Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
|
Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, as if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, hence emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
|
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 a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, hence emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah'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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah'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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, hence a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.
|
If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, hence a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which establishes that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.
|
If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
modus ponen
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which establishes that 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 dog is barking at the door then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, which implies that the dog is not barking at the door.
|
If the dog is barking at the door then laura had installed a home security system
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, which implies that the dog is not barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, thus a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, thus a 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|>
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, as if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
modus tollen
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt 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: ```Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, as if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt 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|>
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, because if a gas leak was detected in the basement then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a gas leak was detected in the basement.
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
modus ponen
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, because if a gas leak was detected in the basement then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a gas leak was detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.