Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If the movie is a drama then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, therefore the movie is not a drama.
|
If the movie is a drama then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john
|
The movie is not a drama
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a drama
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
The movie is not a drama
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, therefore the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking at the mailman.
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which shows that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
|
modus tollen
|
Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
|
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 officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which shows that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar 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 a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to 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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, which establishes that detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the baby is teething on a toy
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, which establishes that detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if the dog is barking at the squirrel then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and the dog is barking at the squirrel.
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if the dog is barking at the squirrel then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not playing with blocks, since if the baby is playing with blocks then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
|
A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not playing with blocks, since if the baby is playing with blocks then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly then the book is written by a famous author, and the cat is sleeping soundly, therefore the book is written by a famous author.
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly then the book is written by a famous author
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
|
The book is not written by a famous author
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly then the book is written by a famous author, and the cat is sleeping soundly, therefore the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, which establishes that a gas leak was not detected in the basement.
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the cat is black
|
The cat is not black
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement
|
modus tollen
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
The cat is black
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement
|
The cat is not black
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, which establishes that a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then the dog is barking loudly, and the book is a collection of short stories, so the dog is barking loudly.
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then the dog is barking loudly
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
|
The dog is not barking loudly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then the dog is barking loudly, and the book is a collection of short stories, so the dog is barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, therefore laura's car was found with a slashed tire.
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, therefore laura's car was found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which establishes that the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which establishes that the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which shows that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then water is h2o
|
Water is not h2o
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
Water is H2O
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
|
Water is not H2O
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which shows that a homeless man named charlie does not claim 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 suspect's name is john davis then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and the suspect's name is john davis, hence john davis had a history of stalking laura.
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then john davis had a history of stalking laura
|
The suspect's name is john davis
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and the suspect's name is john davis, hence john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, so the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, so the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a bestseller then 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, which shows that the book is not a bestseller.
|
If the book is a bestseller 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 book is not a bestseller
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a bestseller
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
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 book is a bestseller 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, which shows that the book is not a bestseller.```<|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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, as if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy.
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is crawling towards the toy
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
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: ```The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, as if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the dog is barking, which establishes that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.
|
If the dog is barking then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
|
The dog is barking
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The dog is not barking
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under 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 dog is barking then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the dog is barking, which establishes that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, which implies that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the baby is crawling towards the toy
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
|
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 a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, which implies that a neighbor did not report 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|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and john davis had bruises on his arms, thus the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
John davis had bruises on his arms
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and john davis had bruises on his arms, thus the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, because if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, because if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a musical film, since if the movie is a musical film then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.
|
If the movie is a musical film then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a musical film
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a musical film, since if the movie is a musical film then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, hence the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, hence the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which shows that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which shows that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, because if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
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: ```The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, because if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which shows that john davis had not recently purchased a firearm.
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which shows that john davis had not recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the book is a collection of short stories, which shows that the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the book is a collection of short stories, which shows that the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, because if emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.
|
If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
| 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 scratches on his face during the arrest, because if emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, which establishes that the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder.
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, which establishes that the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the suspect's name is john davis, which implies that john davis was found with a bag of cash.
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then john davis was found with a bag of cash
|
The suspect's name is john davis
|
John Davis was found with a bag of cash
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
John Davis was found with a bag of cash
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
John Davis was not found with a bag of cash
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the suspect's name is john davis, which implies that john davis was found with a bag of cash.```<|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 strange symbols painted on her door then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, which implies that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
|
John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, which implies that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, therefore the dog is barking at the neighbors.
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the dog is barking at the neighbors
|
A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
modus ponen
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, therefore the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and the baby is playing with blocks, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway.
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
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 the baby is playing with blocks then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and the baby is playing with blocks, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, so a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, so a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the book is a memoir, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, hence the book is a memoir.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the book is a memoir
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
The book is a memoir
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
The book is a memoir
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
|
The book is not a memoir
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the book is a memoir, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, hence the book is 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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which shows that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.
|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which shows that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking loudly then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is barking loudly, so the dog is barking at the mail truck.
|
If the dog is barking loudly then the dog is barking at the mail truck
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
The dog is not barking loudly
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking loudly then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is barking loudly, so the dog is barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, as if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, as if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and 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 stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, thus the baby is drinking from a bottle.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the baby is drinking from a bottle
|
A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
modus ponen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, thus the baby is drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and the baby is playing with toys, which implies that a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.
|
If the baby is playing with toys then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and the baby is playing with toys, which implies that a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, since if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the dog is barking at the neighbors and the dog is not barking at the neighbors.
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, since if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the dog is barking at the neighbors and the dog is not barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, because if the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the dog is barking and the dog is not barking.
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the dog is barking
|
The dog is not barking
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The dog is barking
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The dog is not barking
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, because if the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the dog is barking and the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is moving, because if the dog is barking at the door then the car is moving and the dog is barking at the door.
|
If the dog is barking at the door then the car is moving
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
The car is moving
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
The car is moving
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
The car is not moving
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is moving, because if the dog is barking at the door then the car is moving and the dog is 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 surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, hence a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus tollen
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, hence a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect 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 stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, because if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, because if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, which implies that a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop.
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, which implies that a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which implies that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which implies that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, which shows that the suspect had no history of mental health issues.
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
|
Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, which shows that the suspect had no history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a sports film then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is a sports film, so it can be concluded that the movie is a science fiction film.
|
If the movie is a sports film then the movie is a science fiction film
|
The movie is a sports film
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a sports film
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
The movie is not a sports film
|
The movie is not a science fiction film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a sports film then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is a sports film, so it can be concluded that the movie is a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the door then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the door.
|
If the dog is barking at the door then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, which establishes 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, which implies that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then john davis had a history of identity theft
|
John davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
modus tollen
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, which implies that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if john davis had a history of stalking laura then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and john davis had a history of stalking laura.
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
John davis had a history of stalking laura
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if john davis had a history of stalking laura then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
|
A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo
|
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
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, therefore laura's wedding ring is not missing.
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, therefore laura's wedding ring is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which implies that the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery.
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
|
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: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which implies that the alarm company technician reported 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 car is a hybrid then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is not barking at the squirrel, hence the car is not a hybrid.
|
If the car is a hybrid then the dog is barking at the squirrel
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
modus tollen
|
The car is a hybrid
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is not barking at the squirrel, hence the car is not a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, which shows that john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, which shows that john davis was 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 surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, hence surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, hence surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the movie is a comedy-drama, thus fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
| 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the movie is a comedy-drama, thus fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, which shows that the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, which shows that the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, therefore john davis did not have a secret storage unit.
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, therefore john davis did not have a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, because if john davis had a secret storage unit then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder and john davis had a secret storage unit.
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
John davis had a secret storage unit
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time 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: ```The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, because if john davis had a secret storage unit then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder and john davis had a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, because if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession 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.
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession 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
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
|
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 handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, because if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which implies that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
modus tollen
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which implies that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|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 a bestseller, since if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the book is a bestseller and laura's social media accounts were hacked.
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the book is a bestseller
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The book is a bestseller
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The book is a bestseller
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
The book is not a bestseller
| 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 a bestseller, since if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the book is a bestseller and laura's social media accounts were hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, thus emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, thus emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, so it can be concluded that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
modus ponen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, so it can be concluded 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|>
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is setting slowly in the sky, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which implies that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
|
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: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which implies that surveillance footage showed 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|>
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the victim's name is laura martinez and the victim's name is not laura martinez.
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the victim's name is laura martinez
|
The victim's name is not laura martinez
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
modus tollen
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
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: ```A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the victim's name is laura martinez and the victim's name is not laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and the cat is sleeping in the sun, therefore sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
|
Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping in the sun then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and the cat is sleeping in the sun, therefore sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot 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 stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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, which establishes that the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest.
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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 stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
modus tollen
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
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 stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest 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, which establishes that the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
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: ```If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|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 will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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.
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
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: ```The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the dog is barking at the door, and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, so the dog is barking at the door.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the dog is barking at the door
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
The dog is not barking at 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 the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the dog is barking at the door, and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, so the dog is 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 laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, which shows that a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time 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 laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, which shows that a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, hence the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, hence the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, hence the movie is not a thriller.
|
If the movie is a thriller then the dog is barking
|
The dog is not barking
|
The movie is not a thriller
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a thriller
|
The dog is barking
|
The movie is not a thriller
|
The dog is not barking
| 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 thriller then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, hence the movie is not a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which implies that the baby is not playing with toys.
|
If the baby is playing with toys then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
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: ```If the baby is playing with toys then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which implies that the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
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: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim'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|>
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing, because if laura's pet cat is missing then the movie is a musical film and the movie is not a musical film.
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then the movie is a musical film
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
The movie is a musical film
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
The movie is not a musical film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's pet cat is not missing, because if laura's pet cat is missing then the movie is a musical film and the movie is not a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, which shows that no bloody footprint was found in the living room.
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is crying
|
The baby is not crying
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The baby is crying
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The baby is not crying
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, which shows that no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore 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 a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
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
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, hence the cat is sleeping soundly.
|
If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the cat is sleeping soundly
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, hence the cat is sleeping soundly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, as if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, as if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, since if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
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: ```A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, since if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, as if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.
|
If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, as if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, therefore the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror.
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, therefore the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the weather is hot and humid, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which establishes that the weather is hot and humid.
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the weather is hot and humid
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
modus ponen
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The weather is not hot and humid
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the weather is hot and humid, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which establishes that the weather is hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Cats are mammals, since if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then cats are mammals and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then cats are mammals
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
|
Cats are mammals
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
Cats are mammals
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
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: ```Cats are mammals, since if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then cats are mammals and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the book is on the bestseller list, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, which implies that the book is on the bestseller list.
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the book is on the bestseller list
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
|
The book is not on the bestseller list
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the book is on the bestseller list, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, which implies that the book is on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
|
modus tollen
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene
|
John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
|
John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
| 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 john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then the pizza is hot, and the baby is playing with blocks, so the pizza is hot.
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then the pizza is hot
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
The pizza is hot
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
The pizza is hot
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
The pizza is not hot
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with blocks then the pizza is hot, and the baby is playing with blocks, so the pizza is hot.```<|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.