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 emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, therefore emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
modus tollen
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, therefore emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then cats are mammals, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, therefore cats are mammals.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then cats are mammals
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
Cats are mammals
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
Cats are mammals
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
Cats are not mammals
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then cats are mammals, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, therefore cats are mammals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and the baby is playing with blocks, which shows that detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with blocks then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and the baby is playing with blocks, which shows that detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which establishes that the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which establishes that the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, because if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, because if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
modus ponen
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, as if the dog is barking at the mailman then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and the dog is barking at the mailman.
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, as if the dog is barking at the mailman then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and the dog is 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 laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which establishes that laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which establishes that laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, which implies that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
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 victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, which implies that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, as if a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, as if a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|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 surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and the book is a collection of short stories, therefore surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and the book is a collection of short stories, therefore surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, which implies that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
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: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, which implies that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, so the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
| 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 a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, so the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap.```<|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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, therefore no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.
|
If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
modus tollen
|
A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, therefore no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, thus no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the cat is purring
|
The cat is not purring
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The cat is purring
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The cat is not purring
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, thus no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
modus tollen
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the book is written by a famous author, which establishes that the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
modus ponen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the book is written by a famous author, which establishes that the suspect had a 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 laura's wedding ring is missing then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and laura's wedding ring is missing, hence the victim had a restraining order against the suspect.
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and laura's wedding ring is missing, hence the victim had a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 book is a bestseller then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the book is a bestseller, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.
|
If the book is a bestseller then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
The book is a bestseller
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a bestseller
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a bestseller then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the book is a bestseller, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then laura's laptop was found smashed, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which shows that laura's laptop was found smashed.
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then laura's laptop was found smashed
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then laura's laptop was found smashed, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which shows that laura's laptop was found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
modus tollen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, hence john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, hence john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
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: ```Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is sleeping then john davis had a history of identity theft, and the baby is sleeping, which shows that john davis had a history of identity theft.
|
If the baby is sleeping then john davis had a history of identity theft
|
The baby is sleeping
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is sleeping
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
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 the baby is sleeping then john davis had a history of identity theft, and the baby is sleeping, which shows that john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the baby is crying in the car, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which shows that the baby is crying in the car.
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the baby is crying in the car
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
|
The baby is not crying in the car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the baby is crying in the car, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which shows that the baby is crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then cats are mammals, and the sun is shining brightly, therefore cats are mammals.
|
If the sun is shining brightly then cats are mammals
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
Cats are mammals
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
Cats are mammals
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
Cats are not mammals
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly then cats are mammals, and the sun is shining brightly, therefore cats are mammals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, thus laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, thus laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, which shows that the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings
|
The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, which shows that the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, which implies that no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
modus tollen
|
A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, which implies that no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura'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 the dog is barking at the squirrel then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking at the squirrel.
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
No witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which implies that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which implies that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, hence the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
|
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, hence 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|>
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, since if the suspect's name is john davis then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and the suspect's name is john davis.
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The suspect's name is john davis
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, since if the suspect's name is john davis then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and the suspect's name is john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and 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|>
|
Laura's garage door was not left open, since if laura's garage door was left open then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door.
|
If laura's garage door was left open then the dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's garage door was not left open, since if laura's garage door was left open then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
| 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 recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is not barking at the squirrel, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the dog is barking at the squirrel
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
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 a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is not barking at the squirrel, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the tree is shedding leaves, which shows that a bloody footprint was found in the living room.
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
modus ponen
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the tree is shedding leaves, which shows that a 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 letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, therefore a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.
|
If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a broken chair was found in the kitchen
|
A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace
|
A broken chair was found in the kitchen
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace
|
A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, therefore a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which implies that detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
|
Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which implies that detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, therefore the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the movie is a musical film
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
|
modus tollen
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
The movie is a musical film
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
|
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: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, therefore the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, because if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect.
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
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 suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, because if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and john davis was not found with a bag of cash, so it can be concluded that sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.
|
If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then john davis was found with a bag of cash
|
John davis was not found with a bag of cash
|
Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
John Davis was found with a bag of cash
|
Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
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 sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and john davis was not found with a bag of cash, so it can be concluded that sarah's neighbor did not report 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 sky is blue then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that the sky is not blue.
|
If the sky is blue then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
The sky is not blue
|
modus tollen
|
The sky is blue
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
The sky is not blue
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that the sky is not blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, because if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, because if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, hence emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, hence 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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which implies that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which implies that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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 john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, which establishes that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, which establishes that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, therefore the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
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
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, therefore the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, because if a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.
|
If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, because if a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped, as if laura's house was booby-trapped then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.
|
If laura's house was booby-trapped then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's house was booby-trapped
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's house was not booby-trapped, as if laura's house was booby-trapped then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and no 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 richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which implies that sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily
|
Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which implies that sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, which implies that the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
John davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck
|
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 scratches on his arms and neck then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, which implies that the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the baby is crawling, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, so it can be concluded that the baby is crawling.
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the baby is crawling
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
The baby is crawling
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
The baby is crawling
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
|
The baby is not crawling
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the baby is crawling, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, so it can be concluded that the baby is crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sally is older than john then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and sally is older than john, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.
|
If sally is older than john then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
Sally is older than john
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
modus ponen
|
Sally is older than John
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
Sally is not older than John
|
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 sally is older than john then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and sally is older than john, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, thus a bloody footprint was found in the living room.
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, thus a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, hence the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, hence the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, which establishes that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, which establishes that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, hence the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk.
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, hence the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the weather is mild and pleasant, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, thus the weather is mild and pleasant.
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the weather is mild and pleasant
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
modus ponen
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
The weather is not mild and pleasant
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the weather is mild and pleasant, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, thus the weather is mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, because if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, because if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, therefore no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
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 a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, therefore no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the movie is a comedy-drama
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim'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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, since if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
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: ```A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, since if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which establishes that a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which establishes that a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, since if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, since if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, as if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, as if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, as if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
modus ponen
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, as if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the weather is cold and snowy, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, therefore the weather is cold and snowy.
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the weather is cold and snowy
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the weather is cold and snowy, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, therefore the weather is cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, as if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room.
|
If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
modus tollen
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
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: ```No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, as if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is happy then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, so it can be concluded that the dog is not happy.
|
If the dog is happy then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The dog is not happy
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is happy
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The dog is not happy
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is happy then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, so it can be concluded that the dog is not happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, hence the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
modus tollen
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, hence the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the cat is black, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, hence the cat is black.
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the cat is black
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The cat is black
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The cat is black
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
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 the cat is sleeping on the couch then the cat is black, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, hence the cat is black.```<|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 the movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, so witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the movie is a sports film
|
The movie is not a sports film
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
modus tollen
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The movie is a sports film
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The movie is not a sports film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, so 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|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the cat is not sleeping in the sun, which establishes that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the cat is sleeping in the sun
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the cat is not sleeping in the sun, which establishes that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, which implies that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
modus tollen
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
| 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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, which implies that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, 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 phone records show calls to 911
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
| 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 phone records show calls to 911, and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, which implies that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then john davis had a secret storage unit
|
John davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, which implies that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, which establishes that the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, which establishes that the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which implies that a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which implies that a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, because if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura's passport is missing and laura's passport is not missing.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura's passport is missing
|
Laura's passport is not missing
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Laura's passport is not missing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, because if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura's passport is missing and laura's passport 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 bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, thus no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, thus no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which establishes that a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
modus ponen
|
A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which establishes that a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not happy, because if the dog is happy then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.
|
If the dog is happy then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
|
The dog is not happy
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is happy
|
John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
The dog is not happy
|
John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not happy, because if the dog is happy then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.```<|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 on the bed then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so it can be concluded that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the baby is crying
|
The baby is not crying
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
The baby is crying
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
|
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 the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so it can be concluded that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy, because if the baby is teething then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is teething.
|
If the baby is teething then the baby is crawling towards the toy
|
The baby is teething
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is teething
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
The baby is not teething
|
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 baby is crawling towards the toy, because if the baby is teething then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, hence the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.
|
If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, hence the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, therefore sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
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 on the couch then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.